> On Nov 9, 2024, at 4:24 PM, sartesian via groups.io
> <sartesian=earthlink....@groups.io> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Nov 9, 2024 at 06:31 PM, Mark Baugher wrote:
> So what if the leader of the single-issue coalition, which I called a "united
> front," spent decades in the labor movement and the coalition had a large
> collection of unions participating in the march? That describes the National
> Peace Action Coalition in 1971.
> On Nov 9, 2024, at 4:24 PM, sartesian via groups.io
> <sartesian=earthlink....@groups.io> wrote:
> Swell, and would that coalition accept a radical Marxist group as a member?
> IF so would that group be permitted to present speakers at the demonstration,
> identifying the cause of the war and proposing radical solutions-- in its own
> name of course?
Yes. In addition to labor speakers (https://www.loc.gov/item/2016648574/),
Andrew Pulley from the Socialist Workers Party spoke to "April 24, 1971 500,000
person protest march in Washington, D.C. against the Vietnam War," according to
Wikipedia,https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Pulley. IIRC, NPAC had two
Trotskyist groups and the CPUSA as members of the single-issue coalition, an
antiwar united front.
> On Sat, Nov 9, 2024 at 06:31 PM, Mark Baugher wrote:
> If it "severely constrained" the anti-Vietnam war movement, then how come
> the people implementing this tactic had the larges coalitions, held the
> biggest demonstrations, and organized the largest march in US history to that
> point of 300k-500k people? Unlike the PSLs 300k demonstration in Washington
> DC, this one really happened and was actually counted by third parties.
> On Nov 9, 2024, at 4:24 PM, sartesian via groups.io
> <sartesian=earthlink....@groups.io> wrote:
> Size isn't everything. The war went on until 1975; more casualties were
> sustained by the Vietnamese after the phasing out of US ground combat forces
> than before; US imperialism rolled along, and the single issue movement,
> unable to deal with events in Chile, for one, and the 1974 strike wave,
> dissipated more or less.
How would a multi-issue coalition have changed that besides making the
opposition to the Vietnam War in the US smaller? The multi-issue coalitions
failed during this time to move the needle. Do you think that the right set of
demands would have ended the Vietnam War sooner after the US withdrew troops?
The Chilean coup? Could we have done something to stop imperialism in its
tracks in the 1965-73?
Mark
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#33470): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/33470
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/109441085/21656
-=-=-
POSTING RULES & NOTES
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
#4 Do not exceed five posts a day.
-=-=-
Group Owner: marxmail+ow...@groups.io
Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/13617172/21656/1316126222/xyzzy
[arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
