The very first spontaneous mass movement of the period in question was the Civil Rights Movement. Precipitated by the 1954 Supreme Court Decision (Brown vs. The Board of Education) which, in essence, outlawed the “separate but equal” doctrine in the realm of public education, the Civil Rights Movement started out as a relatively narrow attempt by socially and politically active Southern Blacks to force the actual implementation of the Supreme Court’s decision in the segregated schools of the Old South. However, the movement soon grew into a widespread, mass assault against the entire system of Jim Crow in every realm of Southern life by the masses of Southern Blacks and their (mostly white) Northern supporters.
By 1960, the movement had advanced beyond legal mass actions and economic boycotts as its primary means of activity and had adopted the tactics of mass civil disobedience. Subsequently, in the early part of the ’60s, the movement also began addressing the matter of voting rights for the South’s still-largely disenfranchised Black population. However, the implicit (though half-hearted) support extended to the movement by President John F. Kennedy and his brother, Attorney General Robert Kennedy, resulted in the movement broadening its base to include significant numbers of Northern liberals (i.e., bourgeois liberal Democratic Party politicians, petty-bourgeois entertainers, professional people, students, the relatively progressive sections of the powerful trade union movement, etc.). The Northern liberals quickly became the dominant force within the movement and successfully narrowed the movement’s scope and activities. In other words, Kennedy’s support and the resulting bourgeois and petty-bourgeois domination served to narrow the movement’s aims and restrict the means by which those aims were to be achieved. Thus, the movement became primarily consumed with opening up the present social, economic and political system to Black people, rather than calling the system itself into question (as was advocated by the movement’s more radical elements). And the means by which this “opening-up” was to occur were primarily moral persuasion and non-violent mass pressure– all of which was supposed to result in corrective legislation being enacted by the U.S. Congress.
Notwithstanding its narrow, non-violent nature, the Civil Rights Movement was not without its martyrs: The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was able to get through the previously-intransigent (Southern-controlled) Congress only after the assassination of the Act’s principal supporter, President John F. Kennedy (as a memorial to him, so to speak); similarly, only after the brutal murders of three college students registering Black voters in Mississippi (as well as the overwhelming support accorded the Democratic Party by Black voters in the 1964 election) did the Democratic Congress enact the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
The latter Act was the Civil Rights Movement’s last significant achievement. Upon the assassination of its acknowledged leader, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., in 1968, the Civil Rights Movement gradually fell by the wayside, overtaken by the broader political issues, deepening political consciousness and the more militant forms of struggle and organization that had been developing within the Civil Rights Movement throughout its entire period of existence.
As indicated above, the Civil Rights Movement’s more radical elements were dissatisfied with that movement’s tactics and direction. Though a distinct minority within the movement, these dissenters staunchly opposed non-violence and firmly advocated armed self-defense. They also asserted that what was in fact unfolding at that time was not a struggle for Civil Rights and reform, but a struggle for Human Rights and revolution.
The two leading members of this advanced guard were Robert Williams and Malcolm X. Williams, the president of the uniquely militant Monroe, North Carolina Chapter of the NAACP, was forced to flee the U.S. in 1961 to escape false kidnapping charges. He spent a total of eight years in exile, living in Cuba, several African countries and China. He returned to the U.S. in 1969 and, after protracted legal proceedings, caused the false kidnapping charges to be dropped. Among the many progressive activities Williams has become involved in since his return is the effort to normalize relations between the U.S. and the People’s Republic of China.
Malcolm X (born Malcolm Little), a former street hustler, became a follower of Elijah Muhammad and the Nation of Islam (now the World Community of Islam in the West) while in prison between 1946 and 1952. Following his 1952 release from prison, Malcolm became a Muslim organizer, eventually becoming the Nation’s first National Minister in 1963. When Malcolm had commenced his organizing activities, the Nation of Islam consisted of less than a dozen widely-scattered Mosques, but by 1963 could rightfully claim the existence of more than one hundred Mosques in fifty states. However, moral indiscretions on the part of Elijah Muhammad and the tendency on the part of the Nation of Islam to stand apart from the mass struggles then unfolding, caused Malcolm X to split from the Nation of Islam in March 1964 and found his own organization, the “non-sectarian, non-religious” Organization of Afro-American Unity (OAAU). Less than a year later, in February 1965, Malcolm X was assassinated.
Even before the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 became law, the Civil Rights Movement had issued forth the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC). Originally multinational in composition, SNCC had become an entirely Black organization by the mid-1960s and was at that time a militant advocate of “Black Power”–i.e., Black control of the various social, economic and political institutions in the U.S.’s many Black communities. Strongly influenced by Malcolm X, the highly conscious revolutionary nationalist and militant advocate of armed self-defense, SNCC believed that Black Power would be achieved either through organized political pressure on the presently-existing system by the masses of Black people or, failing that, organized military pressure.
Never for a moment did SNCC see it possible for Black Power to become a reality without white support. However, having seen white domination succeed in channeling many particular civil rights organizations and the Civil Rights Movement in general onto more moderate, more “acceptable” paths, the leaders and cadre of SNCC (as did Malcolm X before them) fervently believed in the need for Black control of Black organizations, with it being the parallel task of whites to overcome racism in the white community and organize white support for the program of Black Power.
But the overwhelming number of white participants in the Civil Rights Movement disagreed with the program of Black Power, since they wrongly favored the complete break-up of all areas of Black concentration and the arbitrary dispersal of the entire Black population among whites. Also, to say the least, the whites did not appreciate the unceremonious manner in which they had been booted out of SNCC and, to a somewhat lesser degree, the entire Civil Rights Movement (after, literally, having given blood, sweat and tears to the cause). However, there was still sufficient opportunity for the whites to get over their initial subjective reaction to the sudden turn of events and objectively study and analyze the entire situation. If they had done so, the whites would have come to recognize the existence of another form of oppression other than social, economic and political oppression–namely, psychological oppression, which is the inescapable product of all other forms of oppression. Having recognized the existence of psychological oppression, the whites could have then seen that the only means by which the oppressed could overcome the effects of psychological oppression (self-hatred and deep-rooted feelings of inferiority) was by engaging in activities taken for granted by members of the oppressor peoples (among the most important of which was belonging to, and completely controlling the activities of, peer group organizations). Through such actions, the oppressed would thereby develop the self-respect and feelings of equality necessary for engaging in joint or coalition work with others (including with enlightened members of the oppressor peoples) on the basis of equality and mutual respect.
For the most part, however, the whites avoided dealing with the question of psychological oppression. Instead, they either dropped out of politics altogether or found alternative forms of political activity. The former divided into those who either settled down to the hum-drum existence of establishment society or who became part of the Alternative Cultural Movement (about which mere later). The more moderate among those who remained political became full-fledged members of the Democratic Party. Most white radicals and revolutionaries, on the other hand, still disillusioned and disoriented, found a measure of solace in the Anti-War Movement.
To understand the basis for the Anti-War Movement’s development, one need only recall that the two major issues of the 1964 Presidential Election were 1) full civil rights for all Black Americans, and 2) no American involvement in the Vietnam Civil War. Conservative Senator Barry Goldwater, the Republican Party candidate, supported States’ Rights rather than Civil Rights and promised to bomb North Vietnam “back into the Stone Age”. Lyndon Baines Johnson, on the other hand, the liberal incumbent president and the Democratic Party nominee, had inherited the mantle of champion of the cause of Civil Rights from his murdered predecessor, John F. Kennedy, and solemnly promised that “no American boy would die fighting in any Asian war”. Johnson was re-elected by a landslide and, as a result of a great deal of mass pressure, proceeded to more or less fulfill his promises regarding Civil Rights (i.e., through passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the various “Great Society” programs). However, regarding the matter of Vietnam, Johnson in effect adopted the very same policy advocated by Barry Gold-water, an action which gave rise to protest of one kind or another within sections of virtually every class, strata and nationality of American society. The sum total of this mass protest was the Anti-War Movement, which was an undeniable part of the political life of this country from 1965-1973.
Generally speaking, the Anti-War Movement was divided into Cultural and Political Wings. The essential difference between the two wings was that the Cultural Wing was primarily concerned with avoiding involvement in the War and escaping from the oppressive nature of U.S. society, whereas the Political Wing was primarily concerned with ending the War and either alleviating the oppression to one degree or another or completely changing the system responsible for the oppression (depending on which sector of the Political Wing one belonged to).
The Cultural Wing was comprised of three basic sectors: 1) The Sexual Freedom and Free Drugs Movements; 2) The Free Speech and Academic Freedom Movements; and 3) The Utopian Socialist or Alternative Institutions Movement. Of course, there was a certain amount of interaction between the Cultural Wing’s three sectors (as well as between the Anti-War Movement’s Cultural and Political Wings); but, for the most part, the Cultural Wing’s three sectors traveled different roads, each leading to different ends.
1) The Sexual Freedom and Legalized Drugs Movements pushed for the right of individuals to openly engage in male or female homosexual relationships and to legally be able to consume all manner of drugs, including marijuana, LSD and heroin. This was the most reactionary sector of the Cultural Wing, for the basic line of thought uniting these self-described “freaks” was that it was impossible to stop the War and that it was impossible to overcome racism, sexism and all other forms of oppression rampant in U.S. society, so the best thing to do was get high, get down and let the rest take care of itself.
2) The Free Speech and Academic Freedom Movements sought to make this country’s college and university campuses free marketplaces of ideas, so to speak, in other words, centers of learning where anything could be freely stated and any course of study freely pursued. In accordance with that end, this sector supported the demand for Black Studies Programs and various other forms of affirmative action for this country’s oppressed national minorities. Regarding the War, the Free Speech and Academic Freedom Movements believed that monies thrown into the War could be better made use of in the field of education, while the young men fighting the War could far more benefit themselves and society by pursuing higher education than serving as cannon fodder in a meaningless war. Rarely did criticism of the War on the part of Free Speech and Academic Freedom advocates go beyond that superficial view. And, not surprisingly, their view of American society as a whole was similarly superficial. That is, the advocates of free speech and academic freedom failed to point out the corporate, military and governmental domination of the field of education in the U.S. (i.e., education’s subservience to the class in power) and perpetuated the illusion that education could be sufficiently reformed under the existing system.
3) The Utopian Socialist or Alternative Institutions Movement took the form of numerous urban and rural communes and collectives springing up in various regions of the country. Often consisting of several score people living an extended-family-type existence, communes reflected a rebellion against the nuclear family. Collectives usually consisted of a considerably smaller number of persons engaging in joint alternative business ventures (food stores, clothing outlets, novelty shops, printing establishments, etc.) usually run along vaguely socialist lines. Of course, such “socialism” was entirely Utopian in nature, for rather than seeking the socialization of the entire economy, it opted for the establishment of socialist islands in a sea of capitalism. In many cases, however, these Utopian Socialists did not share the pessimism of the sex and drug freaks, nor (in the manner of the free speech and academic freedom advocates) did they harbor illusions concerning the corrective nature of the present system. But they were very much mistaken about how a new society would emerge.
In essence, the Utopian Socialists believed that capitalism would fall of its own accord because of the inherent contradictions within the capitalist system. All they had to do, the Utopian Socialists reasoned, was build the institutions of the new society in the womb of the old and, upon the old society’s inevitable fall, the new, existing condition would be socialism. However, their daydreaming completely negated the class nature of socialism (the dictatorship of the proletariat) and completely ignored the fact that socialism does not peacefully arise, but only comes about as a result of a life and death struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. Furthermore, that class struggle doesn’t cease upon the socialist revolution’s success; on the contrary, it continues throughout the entire era of socialism, with the possibility of capitalist restoration inherent as long as classes remain in existence.
Even the most advanced Utopian Socialists were entirely in the dark about such matters until the early 1970s. However, since they engaged in political education to a far greater exfodder in a meaningless war. Rarely did criticism of the War on the part of Free Speech and Academic Freedom advocates go beyond that superficial view. And, not surprisingly, their view of American society as a whole was similarly superficial. That is, the advocates of free speech and academic freedom failed to point out the corporate, military and governmental domination of the field of education in the U.S. (i.e., education’s subservience to the class in power) and perpetuated the illusion that education could be sufficiently reformed under the existing system.
3) The Utopian Socialist or Alternative Institutions Movement took the form of numerous urban and rural communes and collectives springing up in various regions of the country. Often consisting of several score people living an extended-family-type existence, communes reflected a rebellion against the nuclear family. Collectives usually consisted of a considerably smaller number of persons engaging in joint alternative business ventures (food stores, clothing outlets, novelty shops, printing establishments, etc.) usually run along vaguely socialist lines. Of course, such “socialism” was entirely Utopian in nature, for rather than seeking the socialization of the entire economy, it opted for the establishment of socialist islands in a sea of capitalism. In many cases, however, these Utopian Socialists did not share the pessimism of the sex and drug freaks, nor (in the manner of the free speech and academic freedom advocates) did they harbor illusions concerning the corrective nature of the present system. But they were very much mistaken about how a new society would emerge.
In essence, the Utopian Socialists believed that capitalism would fall of its own accord because of the inherent contradictions within the capitalist system. All they had to do, the Utopian Socialists reasoned, was build the institutions of the new society in the womb of the old and, upon the old society’s inevitable fall, the new, existing condition would be socialism. However, their daydreaming completely negated the class nature of socialism (the dictatorship of the proletariat) and completely ignored the fact that socialism does not peacefully arise, but only comes about as a result of a life and death struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. Furthermore, that class struggle doesn’t cease upon the socialist revolution’s success; on the contrary, it continues throughout the entire era of socialism, with the possibility of capitalist restoration inherent as long as classes remain in existence.
Even the most advanced Utopian Socialists were entirely in the dark about such matters until the early 1970s. However, since they engaged in political education to a far greater extent than the members of the other two sectors of the Anti-War Movement’s Cultural Wing, significant numbers of advanced Utopian Socialists eventually found the path of Scientific Socialism.
Such was the form and content of the Anti-War Movement’s Cultural Wing.
The Anti-War Movement’s Political Wing was also divided into three basic sectors: 1) Reformist; 2) Radical; and 3) Revolutionary.
1) The Reformist sector’s basic nucleus was the left wing of the Democratic Party, the dissident (and mostly youthful) party activists who supported Eugene McCarthy’s unsuccessful presidential nomination bid in 1968 and George McGovern’s successful nomination drive in 1972. Since, by 1972, virtually every moderate and progressive politician in both major parties (or, more correctly, the two wings of the one major party) had come out in opposition to the War, McGovern’s base of support was somewhat wider than McCarthy’s (not to mention far better organized). However, the backbone of McGovern’s organization was always the Democratic Party’s youthful activists who believed the War to be a “tragic mistake” and that the way to correct that mistake was to work within the Democratic Party and bring about the election of a Democratic president committed to the War’s immediate end.
Not incidentally, when viewing all other social, economic and political issues, this country’s reformists are dominated by similarly narrow thinking. In other words, according to our reformists, the country’s many ills are either accidental occurrences or the result of mistakes of one kind or another on the part of individual politicians or the party controlling the White House and/or Congress. Therefore, the best medicine for the many ills is that of working within the system and electing a president and congress committed to change.
Reformist politicians such as McCarthy and McGovern represent the interests of non-monopoly capitalists in their struggle against monopoly capital. Though the (mostly) youthful activists working in behalf of the above and other reformist politicians tend to come from non-monopoly capitalist and middle class backgrounds, they invariably believe they are working in behalf of all the people, regardless of class, color or national origin.
2) The Radical sector somewhat resembled the Reformist sector in terms of composition--since radicals also tend to come from non-monopoly capitalist and middle class backgrounds – though a higher proportion of the radicals were of middle class origin. Regarding the War, the radicals didn’t view it as a mistake or an aberration, as did the reformists, but instead viewed it as a conscious policy on the part of the U.S. government to thwart the Vietnamese people’s desire for independence and self-determination. According to the radicals, the purpose of that policy was to keep South Vietnam in the U.S.’s sphere of influence in order that the U.S. could retain access to South Vietnam’s natural resources–namely, rice, rubber and off-shore oil. The radicals further believed that the same basic motive of greed lay at the root of all policies contributing to oppression and exploitation inside the U.S. Not surprisingly, then, the overwhelming majority of radicals believed that ending the War and correcting the country’s other ills could not be achieved by working within the Democratic Party.
However, the radical ranks were divided between those recognizing the need to work within the existing system in general and the electoral process in particular and those favoring other means of mass education and mobilization. Among the former forces arose the Peace and Freedom Party (PFP) in California and several other states in 1968. Eventually, the PFPs merged with similar parties in other states and became known as the People’s Party. In the 1972 Presidential Election, the People’s Party managed to gain ballot status in a dozen states and garnered over 78,000 votes (more than 50,000 of which were cast in California). (Both totals declined by nearly 50% in 1976, while an effort to develop still another mass party in 1976 ended in dismal failure.)
Meanwhile, in 1971, those radicals not participating in the People’s Party effort founded the New American Movement (NAM), a “mass, democratic-socialist” organization intended to educate working people to what NAM superficially considered the root cause of working people’s oppression, the capitalist system. Of course, to talk about the “capitalist system” in general without specifying the level of development of capitalism in a particular country is tantamount to saying nothing. In other words, in the U.S., unless one focuses on the particular nature of capitalism prevailing at this time (imperialism, capitalism at its highest stage of development), then one is spreading confusion among working people rather than educating them. Fortunately, however, the degree of damage caused by NAM has been minimal, since NAM has yet to become a truly mass organization with widespread influence.
3) The Revolutionary sector was comprised of three major subdivisions, each of which was identified with the Marxist Movement: a) Trotskyist; b) Revisionist; and c) Anti-Revisionist.
a) The Trotskyist subdivision manifested itself in the form of the Socialist Workers Party (SWP), which, along with its youth arm, the Young Socialist Alliance (YSA), was very active in the various mass mobilization efforts against the War. In line with their absurd theory that socialist revolutions in individual countries taken separately are impossible and that socialism can only come about as a result of simultaneous revolutions in an unspecified number of the world’s countries, the Trotskyists refused to recognize the Vietnamese struggle as a legitimate war of national liberation. According to the Trotskyists, the goal of such a war must be socialism, but the achievement of socialism through such a war is impossible unless fought in conjunction with numerous other such wars. Since, in their opinion, such was not the case with the War in Vietnam, the Trotskyists concluded that the ends sought by the Vietnamese should not be supported, though the Americans should be compelled to withdraw nonetheless.
Despite their non-supportive posture, why did the Trotskyists play such a prominent role in the Anti-War Movement? Put simply, they did so in order to foist their distorted view of the world in general and of the War in particular onto the rest of the Anti-War Movement and, failing that, to at least win receptive persons within the movement over to SWP and its various affiliates. The objective effect of such activity was to cause confusion and dissention in the Anti-War Movement–to split and wreck it–and historically, such has invariably been the net effect of Trotskyist involvement in the various forms of joint and coalition work.
b) The Revisionist subdivision manifested itself in the form of the Communist Party of the United States of America (CPUSA) and its various affiliates. Ideologically, the CPUSA was closest to the radical’s view of the War and the internal U.S. problems–i.e., that the War was a conscious U.S. policy to thwart Vietnamese independence and self-determination and thereby retain access to South Vietnam’s natural resources, and that the same basic motive of greed was the root of all oppression and exploitation inside the U.S. However, contrary to the radicals, the revisionists surreptitiously advocated working within the Democratic Party as the best means of ending the War and correcting the U.S.’s many internal problems. We say “surreptitiously” because, on the surface, the revisionists gave every appearance of advocating independent political action. For example, in 1968, revisionists quietly involved themselves in the PFP activities and, in 1972, the CPUSA ran its own presidential and vice-presidential ticket (which, by the way, polled slightly more than 25,000 votes), while also rendering certain (though limited) aid to the People’s Party effort. But one must distinguish between the appearance and the essence of the CPUSA’s activities. In 1968, numerous other revisionists worked very hard for Hubert Humphrey (without, of course, revealing their true political connections); while the primary purpose of the campaign effort on the part of the CPUSA in 1972, as well as revisionist aid to the People’s Party campaign of that year, was to provide a “left” cover for George McGovern (i.e., a left opposition force to which McGovern could point as evidence that he wasn’t a “radical”).
Throughout the entire Anti-War period, the principal independent position put forward by the CPUSA was the following: Russian support for North Vietnam was the product of fraternal solidarity and a sincere desire to see Vietnam truly united and independent. Of course, such a view completely contradicted the truth of the matter--namely, that Russian support for North Vietnam was the objective product of superpower contention and was for the purpose of expelling the U.S. from Southeast Asia and allowing Soviet penetration of that region. Thus, within the Anti-War Movement’s Political Wing, the CPUSA was universally and correctly recognized as the Soviet Union’s “fifth column” in the United States.
c) Prior to the mid-1960s, the Anti-Revisionist subdivision manifested itself in the form of the Progressive Labor Movement (PLM). The product of a left-wing split-off from the CPUSA in December 1961, the PLM was the only group putting forward a correct analysis of the root cause of the Vietnam War during the Anti-War Movement’s early years. According to the PLM, the Vietnam War was neither the “tragic error” the reformists believed it to be nor the “conscious policy” and “greed” thought to be responsible by the radicals. Rather, American presence in Vietnam was the inevitable by-product of monopoly capitalism’s constantly expanding need for foreign markets, while the Vietnam War was the by-product of the resistance that inevitably arises in a country oppressed by imperialism.
The first avowedly Maoist formation in the U.S., the PLM declared itself the Progressive Labor Party (PLP) in 1965. However, rather than primarily organizing among workers, the PLP devoted most of its meager human and material resources to the campus turmoil of the mid and late ’60s. This gave rise to the paradoxical situation of the political party intending to become merged with the working class movement becoming merged with the Student Movement instead.
The principal national student organization during the period in question was Students for a Democratic Society (SDS).
The historical development of the SDS in the sixties reflects, rather accurately, the story of the New Left–both its successes and failures. The SDS began as a moderate and generally reformist organization led by highly intellectual, social democratic students from major universities. Its focus was on social reform, and the Port Huron Statement, the organization’s first manifesto, was concerned with beginning a new analysis of American society at mid-century and at articulating the vision–and the frustration–of politically minded students at the time. The early moderation of the SDS is reflected in the organization’s slogan in the 1964 presidential contest: ’Half the way with LBJ’. Early SDS leaders were very much interested in the Peace Corps, worked closely with NSA (the National Student Association, a group which later cooperated with and was funded by the CIA–ed.), and were engaged in white working-class areas in organizing projects funded by the Automobile Workers Union, among other groups. The focus of the SDS changed quickly. The political situation in America deteriorated rapidly from 1964 on, from the point of view of many liberals and radicals. The growth of Black Power among black activists effectively excluded the white student movement from participation in the Civil Rights Movement, a substantial blow to white activists. The escalation of the Vietnam war by Lyndon Johnson provided a stimulus to the further leftward movement of the SDS. The tactics of the Antiwar Movement, from teach-ins to campus activism, to massive national demonstrations, and finally to disruptive activism on both local and national levels, dramatically shows the drift of the SDS and student activism in general in the mid-sixties.
The final period of the SDS, from 1969 onward, was marked by major factional disputes, an increasing radicalism, and a turn toward violent tactics, as well as the development of a Marxist-Leninist analysis of both American society and of the, means of bringing about social change. The SDS, in its own words, moved from protest to resistance to revolutionary action.[1]
Through the SDS, students challenged the arbitrary policies of bureaucratic and insensitive college administrations, drove military and corporate recruiters off many campuses, and struggled to bring the Vietnam War to an end. As relatively successful as the SDS was in some of the above and other undertakings, its impact was small compared to what it might have been had not the organization been wracked by continual and divisive sectarian struggle.
Much of the responsibility for the division within the SDS must be laid at the feet of the PLP. The PLP and the SDS had developed a close working relationship by the middle of 1965 as a result of individuals from the SDS having participated in a number of Anti-War demonstrations sponsored by the May 2nd Movement (M2M), the PLP’s student affiliate. Eventually, in February 1966, the M2M disbanded and many of its members joined the SDS. The PLP viewed the SDS as a primary source of recruits and intended to make the SDS into a cadre organization subject to the PLP’s discipline. In response to this hegemony seeking on the part of the PLP, as well as in response to the PLP’s ridiculous lines on North Vietnam (by accepting aid from the Soviet Union, North Vietnam had supposedly gone over to the side of revisionism) and China (because it did not immediately bring about socialism, China’s New Democratic Revolution was alleged to be inadequate and indeed reactionary), two major factions split-off from the SDS–the Revolutionary Youth Movement II (RYM II) and the Weathermen (now known as the Weather Underground Organization). Thus, the SDS that eventually became synonymous with the PLP was a mere shadow of its former self and the PLP soon degenerated into an insignificant, isolated sect.
As is well–known, the Weatherpeople faction of the SDS ultimately turned to urban guerrilla warfare of a sort, primarily manifesting itself in the form of symbolic bombings of government and corporate property. The Weatherpeople’s guerrilla warfare odyssey need not be dealt with here, except to say that it was (and remains) essentially the activity of isolated and alienated intellectuals filled with moral indignation but lacking faith in the masses of the people to make revolution.
As for the other faction, the RYM II itself split into a number of factions following its withdrawal from the SDS. One of the factions was the already-existing Revolutionary Union (RU), and out of another faction arose the October League (OL) , which was founded in 1972. Those two groups will be dealt with more fully in Part II’s second chapter, which discusses the principal groups comprising the U.S. Anti-revisionist Movement.
Initially, at least, the Anti-War Movement personified the organizational split between Black and white radicals and revolutionaries that had been precipitated by the call for Black Power. Of course, Black people and the U.S.’s other oppressed nationalities also opposed the War and, to a certain extent, participated in the movement opposing it. However, non-white participation in the Anti-War Movement was restrained and largely confined to the movement’s periphery. Such was not the case because of the Anti-War Movement’s predominantly white, middle-class composition, but because Black people in particular and the U.S.’s other oppressed nationalities drew far more inspiration from the heroic, armed struggle of the Vietnamese against U.S. Imperialism than from the non-violent pleadings of the American Anti-War Movement. In fact, at least partially due to the influence of the Vietnamese and other Third World struggles against U.S. Imperialism, a Black Liberation Movement arose in the U.S. That is, among the more militant, radical elements, at least, the Black Movement’s essential thrust moved from the concept of Black Power within the existing system to that of Black Liberation from it. And so, as the numerous and varied activities comprising the Anti-War Movement were unfolding, events of a far more intense nature were taking place within the Black Liberation Movement.
In the early 1960s, many young Black militants in the South had disavowed non-violent demonstrations as the best means of achieving complete freedom and equality. However, alternative tactics had not yet been clearly thought-out and articulated. Thus, in their frustration, the leaderless young militants felt a need to strike out at symbols of their oppression–included among which were the white businesses exploiting the Black community and the largely-white police forces occupying the Black community and violently suppressing its inhabitants. Accordingly, civil disorders began to occur in Southern cities as early as 1963. With the exception of the 1963 Birmingham disorder, however, most were relatively minor. And with the exception of the 1964 Harlem insurrection, practically all the risings had been confined to the South as late as the second week of August 1965.
But on the evening of August 11, 1965, the arrest of an allegedly drunk Black driver by a white California Highway Patrolman in the Watts section of Los Angeles triggered a widespread rebellion lasting more than three days. By the time it was over, almost 4,000 persons had been arrested, 34 had been killed, hundreds injured, and property damage exceeded $35 million.
The significance of the Watts Rebellion was immense. “The Los Angeles riot, the worst in the United States since the Detroit riot of 1943, shocked all who had been confident that race relations were improving in the North, and evoked a new mood in the ghettos around the country.”[2] Among the Black ghetto masses, this “new mood” was clearly seen in their outward expressions of pride in being Black. Natural hairstyles, dashikis and other African attire, ascendent interest in Black history and culture, new and stronger meaning to the terms “Brother” and “Sister”, an indigenous handshake – all were outward manifestations of the Black masses’ new found pride.
Not so evident, but just as intense as the pride, was the skepticism that the Civil Rights struggles and the resulting legislation would ever give rise to Black people obtaining meaningful, good-paying jobs and decent places to live. Thus, the Spring and Summer of 1966 saw a continuation of the previous year’s uprisings among the Black masses, thereby establishing “...that domestic turmoil had become part of the American scene.”[3] In all, “forty-three disorders and riots were reported during 1966.”[4]
1967 was a continuation of the events of the previous two years, only more widespread and more explosive. During what became known as “the Long, Hot Summer of 1967”, mass insurrections shook such widely scattered cities as Nashville, Jackson, Houston, Tampa, Cincinnati, Atlanta, Newark and Detroit. The Detroit insurrection was the most explosive of the entire year. In fact, Detroit was the single most explosive insurrection in modern U.S. history, claiming 43 lives, injuring hundreds, causing over $50 million in property damage and requiring 2700 paratroopers to restore order. In addition to Detroit and the other above-mentioned insurrections, 1967’s “Long, Hot Summer” saw at least eight other serious disorders and 25 minor disturbances occur in other widely scattered U.S. Black communities.
The era of spontaneous, mass insurrections in U.S. Black communities climaxed on April 4, 1968, immediately following the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Prior to 1968, the spontaneous rebellions had, for the most part, occurred separately; however, in Boston, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Toledo, Detroit, Chicago, Washington, D.C. and numerous other cities in the South and West, in over 100 cities in all, the flames of rebellion were simultaneously burning within three hours of Dr. King’s murder. The rebellions continued for a week and the National Guard was employed in virtually every center of conflict. Federal troops were also required in many instances. In all, more than 50,000 Federal and National Guard troops were needed to bring the situation under control, more than 20,000 people were arrested and at least 39 persons lost their lives.
And then, almost as suddenly as they had arisen, mass insurrections in U.S. Black communities ceased being “part of the American scene”. Why? Was it because Black people’s grievances had suddenly been addressed? Certainly not! No, it was because the insurrections were spontaneous risings reflecting a revolutionary mood among the Black masses, a mood which the already-existing leaders and the new leaders brought forward by the spontaneous risings were unable to harness (i.e., channel in the direction of a concrete, realizable goal and, through an organization and a program the Black masses could relate to as their own, work toward the realization of that goal). Therefore, the revolutionary mood was bound to pass and the spontaneous risings reflecting that mood were bound to come to an end.
Why were the Black Liberation Movement’s leaders unable to transform the spontaneous risings into higher, more conscious, more organized forms of struggle? An answer to that question requires a brief examination of the Black Liberation Movement’s ideological subdivisions, more specifically, the content of each subdivision’s line and practice.
From the beginning, the Black Liberation Movement encompassed a few already-existing political and cultural trends. As time went on, however, various new political and cultural trends developed (or were revived after long periods of dormancy) , thus imparting much the same diverse quality to the Black Liberation Movement as that which existed within the Anti-War Movement.
1. Black Nationalism
Black Nationalism was the principal ideological foundation on which the Black Liberation Movement developed, and it remained the dominant trend from the time of Malcolm X’s split with the Nation of Islam through the heyday of SNCC to the rise to prominence of the Black Panther Party (i.e., from early 1964 to mid-1967). During that period, Malcolm X was the foremost contributor to the widespread development of Black National consciousness, but he was assassinated before he was able to develop a clear-cut program and a consolidated, on-going organization Following Malcolm’s death, SNCC became the most militant and influential of all Black organizations and retained that status until the Black Panther Party started gaining prominence in mid-1967. SNCC’s members, like Malcolm, while never minimizing the importance of Black heritage and culture, were primarily political Nationalists, for they recognized that cultural liberation could never be realized in the absence of a political solution. (What that political solution was was never clearly articulated by either Malcolm or SNCC.) However, since SNCC remained a largely Southern-based student organization with relatively little influence among the Black inner-city masses of the North and West, Cultural Nationalism arose in many Northern and Western Black inner cities during the mid-1950s and actually superseded Political Nationalism in a number of localities.
2. Cultural Nationalism
Cultural Nationalism is the practice of giving the cultural aspects of a liberation struggle primacy over that struggle’s economic and political aspects. In other words, Cultural Nationalists turn everything on its head and attempt to change the cultural effects of a bankrupt economic and political system (i.e., a people’s or a nation’s distorted history and stunted culture) rather than dealing with those effects cause (the bankrupt economic and political system). In the case of the Black Liberation Movement in the U.S., Cultural Nationalism manifested itself in the form of Black cultural centers of various kinds springing up in numerous Northern and Western cities, with those centers usually being the focal point of a local (and usually somewhat loose) cultural movement. Plays, poetry, art, literature and music were very popular forms of expressing the beauty of Blackness (which was the movement’s essential unifying sentiment) . Other popular modes of expression included the adoption of African names and the use of African dialects, clothing, jewelry and hairstyles. These latter modes of expression heralded the rebirth of Pan Africanism in the U.S.
3. Pan Africanism
Pan Africanism, the movement attempting to establish the continent of Africa as the spiritual and politically-united homeland of all people of African descent throughout the world, had a largesympathetic following among the Black masses in the U.S. during the 1920s, that is, during the early years of the Pan Africanist Movement’s existence. Pan Africanism’s early success among Afro-Americans was undoubtedly partially the result of the ingenuity and organizational talents of its founder, Marcus Garvey. However, what is oftentimes overlooked is that Pan Africanism was first introduced into Black political life in the U.S. at a time when Afro-Americans were involved in a far reaching cultural movement, the essential outgrowth of which was the relatively widespread development of Black national consciousness. Thus, Pan Africanism’s early success among Black people in the U.S. was more a reflection of the developing Black national consciousness than an indication of a widespread desire among Afro-Americans to return to mother Africa. Such was undoubtedly proven to be the case when, at most, only several hundred persons actually involved themselves in Garvey’s ill-fated attempts to transport Afro-Americans to the African continent.
Upon Garvey’s downfall (he served a prison sentence for embezzlement, allegedly arising out of the return-to-Africa scheme, and then relocated to London, where he died in lonely exile), the movement he created fell on extremely hard times, becoming weak, scattered and virtually non-existent in the organizational sense for the next generation. However, in the late 1940s and early 1950s, Pan Africanism experienced a widespread revival among the various liberation movements on the African continent. In the early 1960s, following the success of many of those struggles, the newly-independent African nations founded the Organization of African Unity (OAU), which was designed to protect the sovereignty of the already independent countries and assist the struggles of those countries that had yet to achieve independence. Not incidentally, Malcolm X derived the name of his short-lived organization in the U.S. –the Organization of Afro-American Unity (OAAU)–from the OAU and definitely intended his organization to be in some way affiliated to what he considered the “parent” body in Africa.
By the latter part of 1966, Black Nationalists had divided into Reformist, Radical and Revolutionary Sectors. The Reformists, for all their militant talk, objectively advocated working within the Democratic Party. The Radicals, on the other hand, advocated founding an independent Black political party. Prior to late 1966, Revolutionary Nationalism had only existed in the form of scattered, unorganized disciples of Malcolm X; however, in October of that year, it established its existence as an organized trend upon the founding of the Black Panther Party (BPP).
It now becomes possible to answer the question that concluded the previous section (“Why were the Black Liberation Movement’s leaders unable to transform the spontaneous risings into higher, more conscious, more organized forms of struggle?”).
During the era of Black spontaneous risings, Pan Africanists and Cultural Nationalists were largely ignored, since they advocated escapist solutions (i.e., “return to Africa” or “liberate thyself culturally”) rather than confronting the various forms of oppression to which the masses of Black people were subject. The Political Nationalists, on the other hand, extensively described and analyzed the numerous forms of oppression and thus enjoyed broad mass support, especially among those directly involved in the insurrections. The support accorded the reformist and radical Nationalists was rather lukewarm, however, since they both advocated moderation to one degree or another. Only the revolutionaries among the Political Nationalists–particularly the leaders of SNCC and the BPP–were followed with enthusiasm. However, since they were not sufficiently organized and were unable to clearly articulate the desired alternative to the oppressive conditions then (and now) prevailing, the Revolutionary Nationalists failed to seize the historical opportunity the era of Black spontaneous risings presented them.
The efforts of the PLP and the SDS notwithstanding, the BPP was the organization most responsible for the dissemination of revolutionary theory among revolutionary-minded people of all classes, strata and nationalities in the U.S. during the mid and late 1960s. Concretely, by popularizing Mao Tsetung Thought, the writings of Franz Fanon and the teachings of Malcolm X among Black people, other oppressed nationalities and whites, the BPP greatly contributed to the development of the national and working class movements in the U.S. That, plus the Party’s militant practice (the armed confrontations with the police, etc.) combined to fire the imagination of a generation of revolutionaries and resulted in numerous advanced elements from all classes, strata and nationalities in the U.S. eventually taking up the deep, serious study of Marxism-Leninism.
Concrete evidence of the BPP’s widespread influence was the rise of parallel organizations among Chicanos, Puerto Ricans, Asians and whites. Also, the BPP was extremely influential among this country’s substantial Black and Brown prison population and played a prominent role in the prisioners’ movement for human dignity and better living and working conditions that rocked correctional institutions from New York to California in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Thus, during its revolutionary period, the BPP made an impact on society and the various sections of the mass revolutionary movement far greater in proportion to the Party’s relatively small size.
Further on we will briefly discuss the BPP’s split along Left and Right Opportunist lines and how what was (and is) left of the Party joined forces with the Reformist Nationalists–i.e., became advocates of working within the Democratic Party. Before doing so, however, it is necessary to point out that even in its revolutionary period the BPP committed very serious errors.
First of all, the leaders of the BPP vulgarized Marxism-Leninism by completely denying the revolutionary (vanguard) role of the working class and transferring that role to the lumpen-proletariat, the most unstable, unreliable class in society. That particular theoretical and ideological distortion caused a great deal of confusion within the U.S. movement and several years of intense study and struggle were required before the confusion was eventually eliminated.
Secondly, in late 1967, though the Black Liberation Movement was far from united (despite a pending merger of sorts involving the BPP and SNCC, the greater portion of the Black Liberation Movement had not yet consolidated around the BPP), and whites had not yet developed a viable parallel organization supporting the aims of the Black Liberation Movement, the BPP prematurely consummated an alliance with the overwhelmingly white PFP. That impetuous move had the effect of undermining what little unity had been developed within the Black Liberation Movement.
Lastly, the BPP committed the grave tactical error of openly displaying arms prior to developing a sufficiently broad base among the masses, thus leaving itself wide open to armed attacks by the state. With the Party’s only defenses being abundant courage on the one hand and insufficient firepower on the other, the state’s armed attacks left the Party badly decimated.
By early 1970, the above and other errors had resulted in the BPP, in effect, repudiating Marxism-Leninism and isolating itself from virtually all political activities that were occurring beyond the confines of its Oakland, California base and the few other cities in which Panther chapters still existed. And before 1970 had run its course, the question of armed struggle split what was left of the Party into two, irreconcilable camps. On the left emerged the advocates of urban guerrilla warfare (the Eldridge Cleaver faction), on the right the advocates of peaceful reform through the Democratic Party (the Huey P. Newton faction). Here the fate of the rival factions need not be dealt with in detail. Suffice it to say, in the wake of several unsuccessful attempts to establish a “Black Liberation Army” and initiate guerrilla war against police in New York City (among other places), the Leftist faction completely disintegrated, while the Rightists have partially succeeded, at least, in living down their past radicalism and becoming left fringe elements in the Democratic Party.
Despite the degeneration of the BPP, the Black Liberation Movement continued to surge forward. In 1969, at least partially as a result of the BPP’s advocacy of Mao Tsetung Thought, a number of militant, highly conscious Black activists in and around Detroit took up the study of Marxism-Leninism and began integrating themselves among the large group of Black auto workers in the Detroit area. This gave rise to the founding of the Dodge Revolutionary Union Movement (DRUM) and other similar groups. Eventually, all such groups combined into the League of Revolutionary Black Workers. Through various forms of propaganda and agitation, and by participating in various plant and union struggles, the League sought to discredit the UAW’s bankrupt leadership and establish a broader base among the Detroit area’s Black auto workers. Black activists in other cities soon began engaging in similar activity, in auto as well as in other industries. In 1971, the League and many of the other groups and individuals engaged in similar work united into one body–the Black Workers Congress (BWC).
Meanwhile, at that very moment, a struggle between reformists and radicals for control of the Black Liberation Movement’s Political Nationalist Wing was reaching a climax. The arena of struggle was the National Black Political Convention, held in Gary, Indiana. If the Reformists and Radicals in attendance were in essential agreement regarding the ends they had in mind (Black control of the economic, political, legal and educational institutions in the Black community), they were totally at odds over how to achieve those ends. The Reformists advocated working through the Democratic Party, while the Radicals sought to build an independent Black political party. As it turned out, the Reformists were very much in the majority and, as a result, gained control of the organizational structure developed at the convention–the National Black Assembly (NBA)–and determined the political direction the NBA was to follow. For appearances sake, the NBA didn’t officially align itself to the Democratic Party, in essence, leaving the choice of which Democratic candidate to endorse up to each individual member. However, the idea of an independent Black political party received very little support and, most importantly, no concrete steps were taken in the direction of forming such a party. Thus, the Radicals suffered a major setback and were relegated to a distinctly secondary position in the NBA, though allowed to retain membership in the NBA and even given token representation on its leading body.
Some Black Radicals chose to stay in the NBA and struggle for control of that organization. Others became totally disenchanted with the NBA and sought other paths to follow. Some were drawn to the movement developing among Black workers in Detroit and other industrial areas, while many others gravitated toward the developing Pan Africanist Movement.
As a result of this influx of numerous Radical Nationalists disenchanted with the Black Liberation Movement’s direction, the Pan Africanist Movement in the U.S. spread to most areas with significant Black populations and became far more politically oriented during the late 1960s and early 1970s. With few exceptions, the Pan Africanists devoted their primary efforts to channeling material support to the various liberation struggles then raging in Africa (Mozambique, Guinea Bissau, Angola, Zimbabwe, etc.). The organizational vehicle for this activity was the African Liberation Support Committee (ALSC), which was founded in 1972, following a national march in Washington, D.C. of 40,000 Black people commemorating African Liberation Day (ALD) (May 24).
At that time, the majority of those comprising ALSC felt more of a need to support the liberation struggles in Africa than to struggle against the oppressive conditions inside the United States. However, upon coming into contact (either personally or through the written word) with Amilcar Cabral, Samora Machel and other Marxist-Leninist leaders of the liberation movements in Africa, and being told by those leaders that the principal theater of struggle for Afro-Americans was the United States, the advanced elements within ALSC gradually began the tortuous journey from Pan Africanism to Proletarian Internationalism. The principal Anti-Revisionist pre-party to arise as a result of that motion was the Revolutionary Workers League (RWL).
A brief summary of the ALSC experience subsequent to RWL’s emergence is a most instructive negative example, as it graphically demonstrates the disastrous results of merging mass and vanguard organizations–i.e., of liquidating the particular function of either organization.
After scoring a major victory at the Conference “Which Road For The Black Liberation Movement?”, which highlighted ALD 1974, RWL became the dominant organization within ALSC. By early 1975, the role of a mass organization during the pre-party period became a subject of intense struggle within ALSC’s ranks. Eventually, in August 1975, RWL advocated the liquidation of ALSC in order to concentrate on the central task of party-building. Incorrectly criticized as a right liquidationist line by ALSC’s other Marxist-Leninist forces (it was actually a Left line), the liquidation proposal was ultimately repudiated by RWL.
Soon thereafter, however, following numerous twists and turns too involved to describe here, RWL merged with the Puerto Rican Revolutionary Workers Organization (PRRWO) to form the Revolutionary Wing. RWL thereupon began insisting that ALSC adopt the Revolutionary Wing’s line on party-building. But in so doing, RWL was demonstrating complete ignorance of the difference between mass and vanguard organizations, and the relationship between the two. That is, it is incorrect for a mass organization to have the same principles of unity as a vanguard organization, since doing so would require those joining the mass organization to be Marxist-Leninists. The objective result of such a policy is the liquidation of the mass organization in general and, in particular, the liquidation of its role of drawing in advanced workers (and the advanced from other classes and strata as well) so that the Marxist-Leninists within the mass organization may, over a period of time and through much struggle, win the advanced to Marxism-Leninism.
In other words, by imposing the line of a vanguard organization on a mass organization, RWL objectively liquidated the latter and, as a result, totally isolated the former from the masses. Thus, as the Revolutionary Wing degenerated into an isolated Leftist sect, ALSC for all intents and purposes ceased to exist. And unfortunately, far from being an isolated incident, the above-described destruction of ALSC is representative of the experiences of other mass formations around the country.
In the U.S., there exist a number of other oppressed nationalities who, in much the same manner as Black people, have been and continue to be the subjects of discrimination and the denial of basic democratic rights. Throughout their history in the U.S., these other nationalities have bravely resisted the oppression to which they have been subjected and have staunchly repelled all attempts to obliterate their rich and unique cultures and heritages. These resistance movements on the part of the U.S.’s other oppressed nationalities have ebbed and flowed from the particular time each nationality voluntarily or involuntarily found its way to this country. In the mid-1960s, however, these movements were experiencing periods of lull, that is, were in states of relative rest. Moreover, with compradore bourgeois elements then firmly occupying the key positions of leadership, these other national movements seemed destined to follow the Civil Rights Movement down the dead-end path of reformism.
But by the early 1970s, the combination of the Black Power and the Black Liberation Movements had inspired the development of similar subdivisions within the movements of nearly all of this country’s other oppressed nationalities. The national movements resulting in the development of Anti-Revisionist formations are briefly described below.
Prior to the mid-1960s, the spontaneous struggles of the Chicano people for various democratic rights were being diverted into reformist channels by the G.I. Forum, the Mexican-American Political Association (MAPA) and other auxiliaries of the Democratic Party. However, the struggle for unionization by farmworkers in California and the struggle for land by heirs of dispossessed landowners in the Southwest, along with growing hatred for the Vietnam War, combined to sweep many among the Chicano masses beyond conventional reformist politics. Thus arose the Chicano Liberation Movement.
1. Cultural Nationalism
Much like the Black Liberation Movement, from which it drew a great deal of inspiration, the Chicano Liberation Movement quickly divided into Cultural and Political Wings, with the latter soon developing Reformist, Radical and Revolutionary sectors. The two main Cultural Nationalist formations were La Alianza de Mercedes (the Alianza) and the Crusade for Justice.
The Alianza struggled for legal recognition of centuries-old Spanish land grants and the return of lands involved in those land grants to the heirs of the original owners. In 1966, after exhausting all legal efforts to regain the lands, armed Alianza forces first briefly occupied a national forest in Texas and then raided the Tierra Amarilla Courthouse in New Mexico. Eventually, stern repressive measures by the Federal Government and the state governments of Texas and New Mexico, along with internal dissention, combined to smash the Alianza, but not before it had broadened its territorial demands to include land for all Chicanos in northern New Mexico. At its peak, the Alianza could claim a following of at least 20,000.
The Crusade for Justice, which was headquartered in Denver, Colorado, specialized in providing health, legal and educational services for Denver’s Chicano community. In addition, the Crusade for Justice put. forward a plan to unite Chicanos in the Southwest (the “spiritual plan of Aztlan”). This plan, which called for the establishment of a Chicano nation in the Southwest and the rebirth of Chicano culture, was overwhelmingly adopted in 1969 by 2,000 young activists at the first Chicano Youth Liberation Conference. However, the Conference represented the high point of Crusade for Justice activity, with a gradual degeneration of that particular organization and the overall Cultural Nationalist Wing thereafter occurring.
2. Political Nationalism
a) Reformist Sector: By the late 1960s, Chicano college students had introduced a more militant style to reformism, as the occupation of campus buildings became a regular feature of a rather widespread movement for Chicano Studies Programs. However, reformism’s most significant achievements were the product of the less dramatic but far better organized efforts of La Raza Unida (The People United), a mass-based political party. Starting in 1970, La Raza Unida ran candidates for school boards and city councils in several south Texas communities where Chicanos were a majority. The party swept to victory in most of its elections. However, it did not develop into a revolutionary or even a radical force in agricultural south Texas, as its principal thrust was to extract concessions from the region’s Democratic politicians.
b) Radical Sector: The Political Wing’s Radical Sector was represented by the Brown Berets. Modeled on the Black Panther Party and serving as the link between Radical and Revolutionary Nationalism in the Chicano Liberation Movement’s Political Wing, the Brown Berets organized numerous community service programs and actively criticized the War in Vietnam. Having engaged in the study of eclectic Marxism, the Brown Berets were more politically conscious and disciplined than other Chicano groups. By 1972, the Brown Berets had 30 chapters in the Southwest and other regions where large Chicano communities resided.
c) Revolutionary Sector: Many of the above forces took part in the dramatic Chicano Moratorium, held in Los Angeles on August 29, 1970. The Moratorium demanded an end to the Vietnam War, the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Southeast Asia, and democratic rights for Chicanos in the U.S. Over 30,000 Chicanos participated in this historic protest, which represented the high point of the Chicano Liberation Movement up to that time. Despite its peaceful, non-violent nature, the demonstration was attacked with teargas and clubs by over 1,500 police. When the demonstrators fought back, the police responded with gunfire. Three Chicanos were killed.
In the wake of the Chicano Moratorium, advanced Chicanos gained a much clearer understanding of 1) the role of the state in defending the position of the monopoly capitalist class, and 2) the role of the working class and the masses in bringing about revolutionary change. These new understandings led the advanced to take up in earnest the study of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought and begin the long, difficult process of integration with the working class and the masses. The principal Anti-Revisionist organization to emerge as a result of this new direction was the August 29th Movement (ATM). Primarily descended from the Brown Berets, the ATM was founded in May 1974.
Puerto Rico, a Spanish colony since its “discovery” by Christopher Columbus in 1493, became an American colony in 1898 as a result of the Spanish-American War. The early years of American occupation were extremely harsh, as the U.S. forced its language, culture and economic system on Puerto Rico’s Spanish-speaking population. Following those early years, the U.S. periodically granted slight concessions to Puerto Rico in order to foster the illusion of a more benign colonial relationship. Specifically, U.S. citizenship was granted to the people of Puerto Rico in 1917, while the status of “Free Associated State” was granted to the island in 1952 (the status characterizing Puerto Rico’s present relationship to the U.S.). But, despite these surface changes, the political oppression of the Puerto Rican people continued unabated.
Meanwhile, following World War II, the U.S. began the systematic elimination of small-scale farming in Puerto Rico and the simultaneous introduction of agri-business and modern industry. Puerto Rican workers were forced to accept one-third the wages of their American counterparts, while American businesses paid little or no taxes on their Puerto Rican holdings. This virtual expropriation of small-scale Puerto Rican farmers and the rape of the workers and economy of Puerto Rico forced thousands of Puerto Ricans to seek a better life in the vicinity of the U.S.’s larger industrial centers. Thus, over the past three decades, a Puerto Rican national minority has come to be concentrated in New York City, Chicago and other northern industrial cities.
Prior to the latter part of the 1960’s, Puerto Ricans in the U.S. engaged in very little mass resistance. Most Puerto Rican resistance up to that time took the form of individual acts of violence–such as the unsuccessful attempt on President Truman’s life by two Puerto Rican Nationalists on November 1, 1950 and the armed attack in the U.S. House of Representatives by five Puerto Rican Nationalists on March 2, 1954. However, during the late 1960s and early 1970s, increasing numbers of Puerto Ricans in the U.S. began rising up against deteriorating housing, inferior education and widespread police brutality.
The first Puerto Rican group of widespread influence during this period was the Young Lords Organization (YLO). Originally a Chicago-based street gang, the YLO came under the influence of the Black Panther Party and eventually evolved into a political organization in 1968. In 1969, a Young Lords chapter was developed in New York City by participants in the famous East Harlem “garbage riots”. In December of that year, the New York chapter occupied a Harlem church for eleven days, renaming it the “People’s Church”. Nearly 3,000 persons participated in the “People’s Church’s” various activities (free clothing distribution, free breakfast for children, liberation schools, political education, day care, free medical care, etc.). Expanding its field of activities to include workplace organizing, the New York-chapter eventually began participating in worker struggles at Lincoln Hospital in the South Bronx. Soon thereafter, in the Summer of 1970, the New York chapter split from the Chicago group and became the Young Lords Party (YLP). The YLP took up the study of MLMTT in the Fall of 1971 and, as a result, evolved into the Puerto Rican Revolutionary Workers Organization (PRRWO) in July 1972.
Asian-Americans are the collective product of numerous Asian countries, each of which are characterized by different cultures and languages (China, Japan, Korea, Vietnam, Burma, Thailand, the Philippines, etc.). About one percent of the U.S.’s population, Asian-Americans are mostly concentrated in the U.S.’s larger West Coast cities, and in New York City.
Though small in number, Asian-Americans have made significant contributions to the growth of American society. As is well-known, Chinese laborers built the railroads of the West and Japanese farmers helped make California one of the most productive agricultural states in the entire country. Asian-Americans made numerous other such contributions in the fields of industry, medicine, science and education.
Throughout their history in the U.S., Asian-Americans have initiated very few political protests and demonstrations. However, of all the oppressed nationalities in the U.S., Asian-Americans have been the staunchest with regard to retaining their respective cultures and languages and resisting forced assimilation (at the expense of their respective heritages) into American society.
Movements reaffirming the sanctity of their heritages have periodically arisen among the various segments of the Asian-American population. The most recent such movement among Chinese-Americans occurred in the late 1960s. But while previous Asian-American movements remained largely cultural nationalist in content, the late 1960s movement among Americans of Chinese ancestry was greatly influenced by the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution then unfolding in China. Thus, a militant, volatile Political Nationalist Sector developed within the Chinese-American Movement. In the San Francisco Bay Area, this resulted in the founding of the Red Guard Party (RGP), while in New York City, the result was I Wor Kuen (IWK). Both groups not only were greatly inspired by the events in China, but also by the militant practice of the Black Panther Party. In 1969, the RGP and IWK merged, with the newly-enlarged organization retaining the latter name. And in the early 1970s, IWK adopted MLMTT as its guide to action and became a component part of the U.S. Anti-Revisionist Movement.
* * *
Such were the spontaneous mass movements of the 1950s, 1960s, and early 1970s in the U.S. that gave rise to Anti-Revisionist formations. Let us now examine the movement that, along with a number of other groups, these Anti-Revisionist formations came to comprise.
[1] Philip Altbach Student Politics in America: A Historical Analysis (McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1974) pp.224-226.
[2] Report of the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders (Bantum Books, New York, 1968) P.38
[3] Ibid., P.38
[4] Ibid., P.40