Workers World, Vol. 13, No. 9
From the very beginning, the anti-war movement has been characterized by two fundamental trends. These two trends have not always been easily discernible nor readily definable. But they have existed from the very inception of the anti-war movement, and have grown and developed as the movement took on greater momentum.
The April 24 demonstration is characteristic of one of the trends while the May Day demonstrations are clearly illustrative of the other. A facile generalization, cultivated by the bourgeois press, characterizes the April 24 coalition as “constructive, practical, reasonable,” and above all, “peaceful and respectable.” Moreover, it has the added merit of larger masses behind it as evidenced by the April 24 turnout in Washington as well as San Francisco.
The more careful observer, however, could easily see that the leaders of the April 24 demonstration earned the mantle of respectability, reasonableness and peacefulness precisely because they have accommodated themselves to the needs, methods and goals of the liberal bourgeoisie.
This, of course, in no way detracts from the hundreds of thousands who followed the course charted by this group. But one must really remember to what lengths the leaders of the April 24 coalition, the National Peace Action Coalition (NPAC), had to go to earn the endorsement of a Muskie, who not so long ago endorsed Humphrey, who in turn endorsed Johnson and the all-out war against Vietnam.
What the April 24 demonstration showed, aside from the fact that hundreds of thousands of people throughout the country were willing to go out on the streets to demonstrate their opposition to the war, was that the leadership of this coalition is in the strong grip of the liberal statesmen who incidentally represent a not inconsiderable segment of the imperialist establishment.
For the Muskies, the Fulbrights and the McGoverns are in truth only opposed to the war (and here we may also mention the Harkes, the Abzugs and the Lindsays, as well) because it is being lost. Their opposition doesn’t go to the crux of the issue which is the imperialist character of the war.
The leaders of the April 24 coalition, who know this full well, have nevertheless chosen to accommodate themselves to the needs of the bourgeois liberals. Who but the liberals can best do the badly needed job to refurbish the venal image of the U.S. imperialist establishment before the entire world?
It goes without saying that the leaders of the April 24 group – especially those like the SWP leaders – have made a mockery out of their professions of struggle against capitalism, etc., etc. And this is precisely the accusation they have made against the CP for many years.
By surrendering their own program, and adopting at the demonstrations the program of the bourgeois liberals, they have in fact shown that they have renounced any claim to representing the socialist interests of the working class. When a grouping receives the high praise of the bourgeois statesmen, capitalist media and even the approval of more conservative elements, it is a sure sign that they are completely in the orbit of the left wing of the bourgeois establishment. (The CP and the SWP are vying with each other in the crassest, most opportunist manner for the post of chief assistant to the liberal establishment in charge of taming the anti-war movement and rendering it harmless to the ruling class war effort.)
From the point of view of numbers the demonstration showed great strength and great potential. But the collusion of the leaders with imperialist liberals took the guts out of the demonstration. Instead of generating a spirit of class struggle it only reinforced the mood of class conciliation with the bourgeoisie. No wonder the Nixon administration gave its approval to April 24 and it is no surprise that the chief of the Washington police, who subsequently arrested over 12,000 people during the May Day demonstrations, praised April 24 and its organizers!
It is altogether different with the May Day leaders and more particularly with the large number of activist youth around them. For several years now they have been the only ones who have been for real resistance to the imperialist establishment and in a general way have rejected the blandishments of the liberals. Unlike the April 24 group, they are opposed to cooperating with the ruling class. In previous years we have taken part in all their significant actions and will continue to do so. YAWF and Workers World supported and participated in May Day, as witness the article in this issue.
However, while they aim for militant struggle, they have placed very severe limits on the character of the struggle within the restricted framework of pacifism, and no matter how one wishes to be militant, it is still militancy in a very narrow context.
The very idea of pacifism, in time of war particularly, cannot but help impart to the struggle passivity in tactics. Equally significant is the fact that the idea of putting up a pacifist struggle implies a renunciation of the elementary democratic right of self-defense against brutal aggression.
Implied in the strategical conception of pacifist ideology is the idea of not defending oneself, of accepting punishment passively.
Unquestionably it takes a great amount of courage and self-sacrifice to engage in pacifist tactics, but it sows illusions, which in turn bring about discouragement and demoralization. Isn’t this just what the capitalist establishment wants?
Even more dangerous is the fact that the practice of pacifism inculcates, consciously or unconsciously, confidence by the masses that the government will not use force and violence to crush the movement.
Thus, when the Nixon administration decided, in the wee hours of last Saturday night, to revoke the permit of the more than 50,000 people who had gathered in the park, and threatened them with arrest if not violence, the mass of the people were taken completely by surprise and left defenseless.
The brutal manner in which the government subsequently violated every constitutional right of the demonstrators with impunity is an object lesson in the ineffectiveness of pacifist tactics. The pacifist leaders failed to realize that the state is organized violence, and it cannot be seriously challenged by pacifist tactics, no matter how militant they may be.
The May Day leaders showed tremendous idealism, a will to fight, profound sympathy for the Vietnamese people and genuine sentiments of solidarity with them. But pacifism has never, in its entire history, been able to win a single serious battle against the state, which is itself organized violence.
The distance between the April 24 leaders and the May Day leaders lies in the fact that the former group are in reality conservative and slaves to bourgeois legality, whereas the latter are willing to challenge bourgeois legality, and are really anti-establishment, but the manner in which the latter restrict and confine themselves leaves the movement helpless.
There is no substitute for a revolutionary class attitude to imperialist war as well as imperialist peace. A revolutionary cannot put any limitation on the form of the struggle against the imperialist war, if for no other reason than the bourgeoisie certainly puts no limitation on its struggle. The tactics must be adapted to the circumstances, of course. This means that the movement must employ all forms of struggle.
It is impossible to conduct a genuine revolutionary struggle without preparing the masses for self-defense. It is impossible to conduct a revolutionary struggle without warning the masses of the dangers they face and without being prepared for it in every possible way.
The basic contradiction in the radical movement today is between those who espouse Marxism but renounce it in deeds, and in particular shun revolutionary methods of struggle, and those who make a bona fide effort in deeds to struggle but who have no Marxist conception of the class struggle, and therefore end up in a blind alley.
Workers World Party exists for the purpose of reviving and restoring revolutionary Marxism and bringing back the synthesis between the word and the deed.
Last updated: 11 May 2026