Workers World, Vol. 21, No. 19
May 8 – The anti-nuclear demonstration in Washington, D.C., this Sunday was a huge, even a spectacular success, if judged by the tremendous turnout far exceeding the expectations of the organizers and many of the groups which participated.
Originally most of the organizers of the May 6th Coalition anticipated that the number of demonstrators would be somewhere in the neighborhood of 35,000, with a maximum of 50,000. It became clear, however, just a week before May 6 that it would be much larger, in spite of the bare three weeks in which the demonstration was organized.
What the demonstration showed was that while organization and preparation are indispensable, it was the spontaneous response of huge numbers of people throughout the whole country which really made it so very successful. May 6 became the focal point to express the enormous anger of many of the people at the nuclear monopolies and the capitalist establishment in general for their callous disregard of the needs of the people with respect to safety, health, and their very lives.
The May 6th Coalition should not be judged on the basis of its vague and amorphous program. It may well be said that it scarcely had any program. The makeup of the May 6th Coalition covers such a wide spectrum of political views that its most positive aspect was in being the focal point for organizing a protest against the hazards of nuclear energy. In taking the initiative to pull together such a demonstration, the organizers made a genuine contribution to the movement.
If such a coalition were to last, however, it would almost automatically follow, given its varied and politically heterogeneous nature, that the most conservative political tendency in the coalition would tend to dominate over all the others and would set both the political line and the tone for future activities.
Those organizations which participated in the demonstration, and understood the limitations of the coalition as well as what its real function would be, did best when they confined themselves to organizing and bringing out the largest number of participants with their own slogans, their own banners, and their own program. This is what Youth Against War & Fascism and Workers World Party did, and did rather well.
While it would be erroneous to judge the coalition primarily by its political program and by its often very contradictory pronouncements on the dangers of nuclear energy, this does not necessarily invalidate the need for a critical evaluation of the way the May 6th Coalition leadership approached some of the fundamental problems with which it was confronted.
In the first place, it had to immediately deal with two crucial problems which any progressive organization would have to deal with as soon as it set itself the task of mobilizing mass popular support for the demonstration: the problems of how to relate to the oppressed people and to the working class.
With regard to the first problem, the coalition leaders at first tried to completely ignore it as though it did not exist – although it stared them in the face from the very first day that they began to work towards this demonstration. Instead of coming to grips with the problem, they went along the “traditional” route by attempting to get one or two very prominent Black or Latin leaders to speak and leave it at that.
They deliberately rejected any attempt at a direct outreach to the oppressed communities – even to Washington, D.C., a virtually Black city. The rationale behind this spurious approach was that “they [meaning the Black people] won’t come out anyway so we’d better try to get those we can [the middle class whites] to come.”
Thus no effort whatever was made to read any of the many million-fold Black, Latin, Native, Asian and other oppressed people in the country. Again, the May 6 leadership went the “traditional” route, that of directing their attention mainly to the middle-class whites and the youth on the campuses.
When Dick Gregory took the microphone at the rally, he said, “No, I don’t want to hear any more questions about why there are so few Black people here today. When I was down in the South in the ‘60s during the [civil rights] demonstrations, there were very few whites. But I know why those who did come were there – because we brought them.”
That’s precisely the point. The May 6th leaders made no effort to bring Black and other oppressed peoples to the demonstration. This requires a special effort over and above the effort that is required to bring the white demonstrators. Treating all “equally” under these circumstances perpetuates the most glaring inequality. Each one of the organizers knew in advance and should have known in their bones that from a strictly economic point of view there is the greatest inequality, even just considering mere transportation to Washington form other cities, from the ghettoes and barrios.
The May 6th Coalition had enough moderates in its leadership to be able to reach out to various liberals, church, and foundation leaders to assure a modicum of financial assistance from them to make sure that many of the buses would be paid for and earmarked for the Black, Latin, and other oppressed communities.
It is well known that something like 50 percent or more of the Black youth are unemployed in such cities as Newark, Philadelphia, New York, and Baltimore. The price of a bus ticket is a financial problem. Even subway fare in New York is a financial problem. It should not be thought that the whole problem would have been solved just that way, but an effort in that direction, any effort, would have made itself felt at the demonstration. But this is precisely what was lacking.
Neither should the May 6th leadership be absolved from their lack of effort to include within their midst representatives of Black, Latin and other oppressed people. It was not a very pretty sight to see the May 6th leaders maneuvering with each other on how many should be in the delegation to see Carter, but not include a Black or Latin leader from the oppressed communities, thus making it an all-white delegation.
Of course, the excuse is always that it had to be done in a hurry, and so on and so forth. It’s true that Carter made up his mind rather quickly to meet with the May 6th leaders after he saw the large number of demonstrators the day before, but had the leaders though a little more deeply of the consequences of having an all-white delegation, they would have easily seen that solidarity between Black and white is key and central not only to the anti-nuclear movement as a viable force but to any progressive movement in the struggle against the monopolies.
It should also be noted that one of the few areas where it required little effort to get some support from the Black community was in Washington itself, a mostly Black city with a Black mayor and a majority of Blacks on the City Council. No effort was made to enlist their support with a view toward getting a turnout from the District itself.
If the May 6th leadership did so poorly in relation to reaching out to the oppressed community, they were equally deficient in reaching out to the working class. Here again they pursued the “traditional” course. It was, of course, good to have William Winpisinger, the head of the International Association of Machinists, as one of the endorsers and speakers at the rally. But that was about it, except for Ruth Jordan, from the Coalition of Labor Union Women, and a rank-and-file steelworker from Gary, Paul Kaczocha, who fought against the Bailey nuclear power plant.
The labor bureaucracy is far too lazy and timid on most of the contemporary issues of the day to take a broad interest in the anti-nuclear issue. Yet there have been many locals that have demonstrated their independent interest in the struggle. Rank-and-file sentiment if very strong against the nuclear monopolies not only because of safety dangers which the workers, after all, are the most subjected to, but because of the myriad dangers to health arising not only in nuclear and chemical facilities, but in practically all present-day manufacturing plants and other workplaces.
There was no special appeal made to the workers as such from the May 6th Coalition, and no special appeal to the hundreds and hundreds of local unions right around the New York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey area. Even a simple letter would have been better than nothing.
While it is certainly progressive for a trade union leader to endorse the anti-nuclear struggle or any other progressive political struggle, the best criterion for judging the union leaders’ participation is how well they mobilizer their own union’s rank and file in the struggle and what material support is given to the struggle. It is well known that the labor bureaucracy has spent millions to support this or that candidate for President, Senator, or Representative, mobilizing and haranguing their own rank-and-file to support them at election time.
Winpisinger and other labor leaders should have mobilized the rank-and-file in their unions for this demonstration, which of course wasn’t done. On a lesser scale, material support for the demonstration from the unions would have been very helpful, especially if it was earmarked for financing transportation of buses from the Black, Latin, and other oppressed communities.
Compared to the costs of electioneering for this or that demagogic capitalist politician, the amount of money involved really would have been minimal while serving a highly progressive purpose and helping Black and white solidarity in the struggle against the very monopolies that are the enemies of the trade union movement.
Of course, if the trade union bureaucracy were genuine leaders of the workers, they would have initiated the struggle against the nuclear monopolies, since it is the working class as a whole that has the greatest interest in it and is most deeply and vitally affected by it. But as matters stand, they have to dragged into it by the hair more or less as a symbol of working class representation, and as a substitute for working class participation.
Now that the Washington demonstration has shown what tremendous sentiment there is against the nuclear monopolies, many a capitalist politician is casting eyes toward the anti-nuclear movement. There are not a few adroit hands that are deftly trying to steer the movement into one of the machines of the capitalist politicians.
The presence at the demonstration of California Governor Brown, a thinly-disguised champion of Proposition 13, is one example that scarcely needs comment. Kennedy is another. He sent a mildly-worded message to the rally. His anti-nuclear program is sheer cosmetics for the utility companies and even at that is hedged with a thousand-and-one conditions.
A considerable number of capitalist politicians paid keen attention to the so-called lobby groups that stayed over from the Sunday demonstration to visit their Congressional representatives. It is also to be noted that Carter acceded to a demand of the May 6th Coalition to meet with him only after he saw how strong the demonstration was.
Indeed, the demonstration is likely to act as a catalyst causing a deep break of the popular masses away from the two big business parties. The day after the demonstration, Ralph Nader at last proclaimed the need for a so-called third party movement – but postponed it until 1984!
The demonstration revived, in the words of the Washington Post, “memories of the huge anti-war demonstrations.” The Pentagon planners pushing the draft and new weapons systems are paying the keenest attention to this new movement.
It has also, of course, accelerated the activity of a new crop of old-line social democrats, whose plans for vanquishing the imperialist monopolies are as ill-fitting as a saddle on a cow.
The Washington anti-nuclear demonstration proved that the conditions for a truly giant mass movement against big business does exist. It is most easily visible when it is harnessed to such a powerful issue as the struggle against the nuclear monopolies. It is not possible, however, for it to long continue as a sort of single-issue movement isolated from all the other very grave and serious issues of contemporary politics. This calls for a fusion with the struggle of the oppressed people and the cause of the working class.
In other words, the movement must be put on a sound working class basis. If not, it easily lends itself to the manipulation of capitalist politicians and becomes a plaything in their hands.
Last updated: 11 May 2026