On March 17-19 a conference to plan activities in San Diego during the Republican convention in August, was held by the San Diego Convention Coalition in Santa Barbara. About 300 people from the west and southwest attended.

The San Diego group’s plans for mass non-violent demonstrations at the convention and for “Expose 72” were generally approved by the conference. “Expose 72” will be a “large exposition about the victims of injustice and their liberation struggles; the institutions and ideas which perpetuate this injustice and some visionary but practical alternatives to the oppressive system we live under.” It is also planned that a “People’s Platform” not yet written be circulated and used as an organizing tool before and after the convention. The people who formed the Convention Coalition in San Diego originally hoped for the inclusion of labor, black, Chicano and women’s organizations within the Coalition. The platform would then have been drawn up by the Coalition as a whole. However, the Coalition is primarily composed of white youth, who hope to build alliances with others before writing a comprehensive political statement.

The conference developed a set of principles of unity as a basis for organizing for the convention and as a guide in the construction of alliances, both in San Diego and in other parts of the country:

  1. We support an end to Nixon’s policies of political, economic, racial and sexual oppression: NEP, Wage-Price Freeze, the use of the Taft-Hartley Act, welfare cuts, veto of the child care bill, attacks on prisoners, use of grand juries in political trials, racist use of the busing issue;
  2. Building alliances with Third World communities by creating the following relationships between Third World communities and the San Diego Convention Coalition: non-interference in the leadership of Third World communities, emphasis by white organizers on the issue of racism and the problems of working people in their own communities;
  3. An immediate end to all US aggression and involvement in Indochina and support for the PRG 7 Point plan for peace in Vietnam;
  4. We oppose all US interference in the internal affairs of other countries;
  5. The demonstrations we are planning for August should not be violent;
  6. No party or presidential candidate will be pushed through use of slogans or the speakers’ platform in the demonstrations. In addition, we will not support any presidential candidate.

There was little opposition to these principles, although there was some confusion about the meaning of numbers 2 and 5 particularly.

The main political questions raised by the conference can’t be resolved at the present time, but it is desirable to discuss them briefly and to encourage discussion within NAM about the convention activities.

First, the usual question of the relation between a national action and local organizing arose. Members of the SDCC argued that this national action can be different from previous actions because of its base in local organizing in San Diego. They emphasized bringing people to San Diego, which is understandable, but doesn’t distinguish these activities from many previous national actions. At a time when the level of movement activity is generally low. a national action is certainly better than nothing. But if it is presented as an almost apocalyptic relief from local problems and local boredom, frantic, spasmodic work may be followed once again by collapse.

Second, how can mass anti-Nixon demonstrations be held without being reduced to pro-Democrat demonstrations? People were aware of this problem, and said that the actions at the convention were not to support the Democrats, but to . attack Nixon and to help build an autonomous radical movement.

Yet to state that the Democrats shouldn’t be supported is not sufficient to determine the actual means by which our actions will remain autonomous and large-scale. Most of the principles adopted by the conference are, or could be, supported by liberal Democrats without much more than the usual equivocation. To build a broad alliance for convention activities the organizers must work with groups that are attached to the liberal wing of the Democratic Party, or which act as pressure groups on that party (UFWOC, NWRO, SCLC). Such alliances are not wrong, but they are not likely to emphasize the need for a movement independent of both major parties, much less a socialist movement.

These problems are due in part to the character of the Democratic Party •• its enduring flexibility and capacity to absorb insurgent social movement. At the conference, the slogan “a united front against Nixon’s policies” was often used to describe convention activities. This slogan and the political conceptions that usually accompany it lose sight of the reality of the Democratic Party, which is neither a social democratic labor party nor simply a bourgeois party similar to christian democratic parties in Europe.

A united front against Nixon cannot help but reach into the Democratic Party. In 1968, an attack on the ruling party appeared as an attack on the whole system more clearly than it will in 1972. It seems likely that convention activities will be viewed differently by different people. Some will view them primarily as a means to construct an independent radical movement; others will regard them as a means to defeat Nixon.

At this point defeating Nixon means electing a Democrat. In what ways is that desirable, and to what extent? In what ways do Nixon’s policies differ from those a Democratic administration would employ? Are there important differences among Democratic candidates?

These questions can’t easily be answered, but if they are not faced, we will again fall into a militance unaware of its own consequences. An SDCC pamphlet says that: “The Coalition isn’t planning demonstrations at the Republican Convention just so we can have a liberal Democrat for president. We’re moving against Nixon and the Republicans because they are the present guardians of the interests of the American establishment … if we don’t act in San Diego we will give Nixon a free rein in his escalation of the war and increasingly repressive domestic policies.” This outlook is essentially defensive •• but not necessarily invalid at the present time.

The problem in Santa Barbara was that not enough effort was made at the conference to determine the likely consequences of the actions planned. Yet it would be wrong to become paralyzed by the ambiguities and difficulties of the present situation. The Democratic Party won’t retire if we ignore it, but will always respond to insurgent movement. A socialist movement, directly challenging the liberals will be required to find means of dealing with the Democratic Party’s complex strengths in various situations.

Fragmentation of the women’s movement and the refusal of many women to participate in activities with men seemed to combine to produce less immediate pressure against sexism in Santa Barbara than might have been the case a year or two ago. It is possible that some men take the absence of that immediate pressure for a sign that things are all right now, when, if anything, it indicates the reverse.

Fourth, there was general agreement at the conference on the need for an anti-imperialist movement, both for San Diego and beyond. Several different conceptions of such a movement were advanced. One emphasized primarily the deepening of political understanding of sections of the anti-war movement and of white youth, toward an integrated view of the sources and purposes of US foreign policy. A second conception, which also had considerable support, placed major emphasis on relating anti-war demands to the demands of the industrial working class, with the idea of forming a movement that would be anti-imperialist in its consequences, if not in its consciousness.

Third, the principles adopted by the conference make almost no mention of sexism, either with regard to the internal operation of organizing groups or to their political perspectives. But this is not to imply the absence of sexism. With the significant exception of the Convention Coalition group from San Diego (their speakers, proposals, etc.), men almost completely dominated the sessions which I attended. Associated with their domination in many cases was a real obstruction of clear political discussion, repetition of arguments, etc.

Almost everyone at the conference strongly opposed the anti-war strategy of the SWP-YSA, which was seen as limiting the development of political consciousness, and often tying the anti-war movement to liberals within and close to the Democratic Party. There was an element of sectarian competition with the SWP that verged on becoming a quarrel over slogans. Yet insofar as the critique of SWP anti-war strategy is based on a desire to extend and increase political consciousness by relating the war to other aspects of US society, it should be supported.

Such support must be critical, however, because of the difficulties involved in defining, much less constructing, an “anti-imperialist movement.” The viability of a sustained anti-imperialist movement that does not have a socialist consciousness seems to be questionable. In the absence of a deliberate attempt to create socialist consciousness around the war and imperialism, two political tendencies often appear, sometimes in conjunction with each other. One is moralism and cultism, which has come to the fore at the worst points in the history of the New Left: support the Viet Cong because they’re beautiful and fighting back. Another is an economist attempt to link anti-war arguments to the immediate demands of industrial workers: oppose the war (or even: fight imperialism) because it’s costing you money and making you work harder. The first tendency is generally limited in its appeal to the strata from which the New Left came. The second really requires an extreme deterioration of material conditions within the US for a chance of success, which is not certain even then.

Within the US the only durable anti-imperialist movement would be a socialist movement. There are several reasons for this. First, the US is not a colonized nation, and contains no “national bourgeoisie” that might consistently oppose imperialism; the liberal bourgeoisie is clear and firm in its commitment to the general outlines of US imperialism, and retreats only under pressure. Second, there is no substantial petit bourgeoisie (middle class) that might be seriously anti-imperialist. This is due to the proletarianization of large parts of that class, and to the direct attachment of other sections of it to the corporate bourgeoisie. Third, the material position of the US is not so weak, nor is it likely to be in the ear future, as to give immediate demands of various social strata a sustained anti-imperialist character.

Fourth, only socialist consciousness around the question of imperialism can provide a basis for an effective alliance among sections of the working class in the US whose immediate interests with regard to imperialism are often disparate and sometimes even antagonistic. Finally, socialist consciousness seems to me crucial in the self-understanding that can result among the participants in an anti-imperialist movement. The determination, strength, and creativity with which people act against imperialism, in Vietnam and elsewhere; is linked to the extent to which they see their actions as a necessary part of a struggle for the reconstruction of their own social relations—rather than as a moral imperative or as a way of maintaining wage-levels.

An analysis of imperialism, no matter how precise and well-researched, that doesn’t connect anti-imperialism with the need for socialism within the US is ultimately an inconsequential exercise. In practice, it ends either in elitist actions or large demonstrations whose politics don’t get beyond calls for peace and justice, expressions of a static and defensive radicalism caught within the existing system.