The united front and antiwar struggles

THANKS TO Paul D'Amato for this important discussion on the united front tactic ("Understanding the united front").

The ideas of the united front, as Trotsky explained and as Paul noted, changed between 1919 and the time of the rise of fascism in Germany before the Second World War, but the reasons for a united front did not change.

During the Vietnam War period in the U.S., the U.S. Socialist Workers Party (SWP) tried to deal with this concept and based its work in the National Peace Action Coalition and the Student Mobilization Committee on its understanding of a new kind of united front warranted by the different circumstances of the day. Because there were no mass working-class parties of any kind at that time, they saw the possibility of building a mass movement with other organizations based on a single demand, "Out now."

The single-issue concept was important precisely because there were no mass working class parties in the U.S. Therefore, any multi-issue program could only lead to a liberal, pro-Democratic Party alliance that would steer the movement off track. This became clear as we battled against the multi-issue programs of others in the antiwar movement at the time, and as we saw the movement decline during elections of antiwar candidates such as McCarthy and McGovern.

Today, I think the ideas of the united front should be looked at again in a still different light. Today, there is no antiwar wing of the Democratic Party or of the ruling class. Today, the Democratic Party is leading the assault against the working class on questions of war, civil liberties, immigration rights, racist attacks, austerity and anti-unionism.

While I think it is still important to try to drag Democratic Party politicians along with us as we build the antiwar movement, the Democratic Party no longer puts forward any program, however liberal or reformist, to fight racism, for civil liberties, or to end war. The ruling class today is using the Democratic Party as the main vehicle of their attacks.

This, coupled with the fact that the wars, conducted under the auspices of a "war on terror," are being used to justify attacks on civil liberties, to push for austerity, etc., make it important that the antiwar movement take up these issues. This means that, unlike during the Vietnam era, the antiwar movement can no longer be a single-issue movement, and a united front antiwar movement, in the context of today's politics, must be based on a number of related issues.

These are some very quickly written ideas, but I think they can be part of a discussion of how we can use the united front tactic today in the antiwar movement and other movements for social change. I think it is essential that we do so.

The left today is as sectarian as the left was in Germany during the rise of fascism. Left groups often call other left groups "opponents." As the U.S. moves around the world spreading conflict, it uses the tactic of divide-and-conquer and pits one ethnic or religious group against others.

We must not allow the small left in the U.S. to be so divided. If we allow ourselves to work together on issues that we agree on, and are open to democratic discussion on issues that we don't, we will strengthen our movements, perhaps to the point that we can build a mass workers party in the U.S. By working together, we can also gain some experience in the struggle together. Instead of developing theory based on our understanding of history, such as the history of the united front, we will inform our theoretical understanding based on our common struggle.

There is much more that need to be discussed about the idea of the united front, so I am happy to see Paul D'Amato has started this discussion.
Joe Lombardo, Delmar, N.Y.