Lessons From the RNC: Mass Mobilization and Militant Actions Advance the Struggle
by Freedom Road Socialist Organization
The Republican National Convention brought many of the biggest war-makers to Minnesota. The people's movements from across the U.S. responded by organizing four days of demonstrations against the RNC. Freedom Road Socialist Organization prioritized organizing against the RNC and helped build multiple days of protest including the mass anti-war march of 30-35,000 people on September 1st and the “No Peace for the Warmakers” militant march turned civil disobedience on September 4th.
We saw the RNC as a chance to unite the anti war movement under the slogan “U.S. out of Iraq Now” and to build a broad united front against the Republican agenda. By any standard the powerful protests that rocked St. Paul were a blow against the rulers of this county.
For progressive and revolutionary organizations the RNC served as a sort of test. Many, from a variety of political trends - ranging from Marxist-Leninists to anarchists - passed this test with banners raised and flying colors. They stepped up to the plate, organizing a historic response to the Republican agenda of war, racism, and reaction.
However Socialist Alternative, a Trotskyist organization which is based in Washington state and the Twin Cities, took a different approach to the RNC. Their approach did not prioritize building for a large national demonstration or for militant action. In their summation of the RNC in their newspaper, entitled, "Protests and Police Repression Mark the Republican National Convention - Thousands Take to the Streets Against War and the Right Wing Agenda" they claim to have made the most of historic events which they in fact did little or nothing to contribute to. They also focus their summation on attacking the anarchist oriented RNC Welcoming Committee for their blockade strategy and on criticizing militant action in general.
We in FRSO generally don’t spend a lot of time criticizing other organizations but sometimes it has to be done - the RNC was a very important event for our movement locally and nationally, so there is a need to respond to Socialist Alternative’s criticisms of militant action at the RNC.
Are the Masses Ready for Militancy?
Leading up to the RNC our analysis was that the anti-war movement needed more militant actions in addition to legal demonstrations to further develop the anti-war movement.
On September 4th, over 2,000 people came to the Anti-War Committee's No Peace for the War -Makers demonstration and over 1000 took to the streets to march to the Xcel Center despite the refusal of a militarized police force to allow them to go more than a block from the state capitol. 396 people were arrested for "illegal assembly" after marching and holding the streets for more than three hours in defiance of the huge and intimidating riot police presence and their repeated orders to disperse. Every local TV station that covered John McCain's acceptance speech at the RNC also covered the anti-war movement's counter message outside the Xcel Center. The majority of protesters at the demonstration were young people many of whom had not been to protests before.
All in all, the September 4 march was a powerful experience that was invigorating and motivating. This demonstration has inspired both the local and national anti-war movement, and has led to even more people being willing to consider doing civil disobedience and direct action against the war in Iraq. We see this as a success and a real accomplishment.
However, Socialist Alternative's assessment was the opposite. They argued against militant action on the ground and actively discouraged people from participating in the demonstration on September 4th. In fact they echoed the city government and waged a mini campaign to create a climate of fear about the protest.
In their summation article, they claimed that people are not yet ready for mass militant action, stating "While there are thousands of activists, particularly among the youth, who understand the illegitimacy of the RNC – and of the entire capitalist system for that matter – socialists must argue against moods of impatience. We will not be able to successfully take on and defeat the capitalist system and its state forces until the majority of the working class supports this effort, and is organized to carry it forward. For anti-capitalist activists today, our main task is not to substitute ourselves for the lack of sufficient forces, nor is it to try and artificially “spark” wider layers into action."
Socialist Alternative's approach is that we should wait until a critical mass of people is ready to stand up before taking any action outside the highly constricted bounds of legally permitted protests. This approach is mechanical, creating an artificial separation on the spectrum of protest tactics. It is a rightist error. There is in fact a dialectical relationship between legal and advanced tactics as the movements grow. Many people are ready to take direct action now and their actions can inspire others. This is not a call for adventurist actions – it is a recognition that increasing the level of militancy of the movement is a good thing. It gives people more advanced experience in confronting the powers that be, it can raise the political costs of the ruling class’s wars, and has the potential to inspire broader layers of people to move forward.
It is simply not logical to argue that people will somehow be ready to take more militant actions at some undetermined point in the future if they have never taken them, led them, or seen others use militant tactics.
Socialist Alternative wrongly thinks that demonstrations like September 4th alienate the working class, but in reality a new generation of activists and older activists who have not been active since the wars in Central America were inspired by this demonstration. Broad numbers of people who saw it on the news sympathized with the protesters and were shocked at the riot police’s use of teargas and mass arrests. Socialist Alternative fails to recognize that a future militant mass movement will grow out of today’s relatively smaller actions where we gain experience confronting the enemy. Besides, 818 people being arrested over four days at the RNC is not a small, isolated group of people.
Instead of helping to broadly build the overall RNC protest movement, Socialist Alternative choose to put most of their efforts into organizing a student walkout demonstration of about 200 people on September 4. This small action began before the Anti-War Committee demonstration. While it was supposed to originally end at the AWC demonstration, Socialist Alternative instead changed their plans and decided to march to a peace picnic on the other side of St. Paul so that their supporters would not have the opportunity to participate in or to be exposed to militant action. Although Socialist Alternative claims that they support revolution, they apparently want nothing to do with anyone taking any political action outside of the laws established by the very two-party system they claim to oppose. We think Socialist Alternative made a mistake in disassociating from the No Peace for the Warmakers march on Day 4 of the RNC and instead leading a smaller, much less significant march at a different time of the day.
Criticizing the RNC Welcoming Committee While the State Attacks Them
Though most of the end of Socialist Alternative’s summation article discusses the negatives of militant action in general, they have very specific criticisms of the RNC Welcoming Committee (WC). Although they claim to support the members of the Welcoming Committee who are up on terrorism charges and possibly face more than seven years in jail, they use their website and newspaper to denounce their work and to further the criticisms against the Welcoming Committee in one of their darkest hours.
Socialist Alternatives article says, "While Socialist Alternative completely opposes the police repression against them, we do not agree with the politics and methods used by the Welcoming Committee. Rather than focusing on bringing fresh layers of workers and youth into political action, virtually all the mobilizing material produced by the Welcoming Committee was aimed at a very narrow layer of already convinced anarchists and anti-capitalists. They put forward the perspective that this narrow activist layer was a sufficient social base to organize mass blockades to shut down the RNC. However, the blockades tactic appears to have attracted relatively small numbers and caused only minor disruptions for RNC delegates."
Unfortunately, Socialist Alternative 's decision to air their grievances with the Welcoming Committee's strategy only serves the interests of the government who every day attempts to isolate the RNC 8 from the community support they so vitally need to defeat the incredibly serious and outrageous charges against them. We think Socialist Alternative’s attempt to portray the WC as isolated at the moment they most deeply need support is unprincipled and shows that Socialist Alternative does not understand true solidarity. While FRSO did not choose to use the blockade strategy that the Welcoming Committee did, we believe like Mao said, “it’s right to rebel against reactionaries.” We think that militant action is positive and creates more space for a broader resistance movement to develop out of the current protest movements. We support not only the RNC 8 but their use of the blockade strategy and their mobilization of militant activists from around the country to come to the RNC.
Socialist Alternative makes it seem like there’s something wrong with the WC having decided to specifically mobilize anarchists to come to the Twin Cities to disrupt the RNC. There is a substantial scene of young anarchists around the country – the WC did a good thing by focusing that scene’s energy on disrupting the biggest warmakers on the planet.
The RNC Welcoming Committee was an important part of the broad movement that was built against the RNC. We believe that the events on September 1-4 as a whole will move the movement forward politically and that this is because of - not despite - the militant actions organized by groups like the RNC Welcoming Committee and the Anti-War Committee.
Trotskyism = Idealism
Socialist Alternative’s errors are rooted in a wrong ideological and political line. Trotskyism, unlike Marxism-Leninism, supports an idealist (as opposed to materialist) view of revolution and the world. Socialist Alternative does not correctly analyze the events surrounding the RNC because they are not looking at the situation with an eye to what is possible and where we can realistically go. Rather than concretely analyzing the objective and subjective conditions and the balance of forces to figure out what to do, they rely on unchanging formulas to respond to any situation that comes up, like in this case saying that no one should do any unpermitted protest activities until the majority of workers support that. But how will we ever build support among workers for a more militant movement if nobody ever starts to take more militant actions that will become a social question that is debated and struggled about?
Marxism isn’t about repeating pat formulaic approaches. Marxists need to learn the art and science of analyzing concrete conditions in their particularity and figuring out how to move things forward from there step-by-step. This applies in the day-to-day struggle right now. And it will be vital in making a revolution in the U.S.
Trotskyists of the Socialist Alternative type try to substitute reality for their “good ideas,” and if reality does not conform to their good ideas, then they get mad at reality and retreat off to “peace picnics.”
They want perfect revolutions, revolutions that are led by folks that happen to think like them, to fall from the sky. They think they can wait until that perfect moment to suddenly flip a magic switch and encourage their supporters to rebel when they have not built the capacity to do so over time in the mass struggle. No revolution has been built through that manner. It’s no surprise that no Trotskyist group has led a revolution anywhere on the planet in Trotskyism’s nearly 100 years of existence. Revolutions are built through struggle and in taking the movement forward step-by-step -- not just talking the talk for a long time and then suddenly jumping to the revolution.
Socialist Alternative’s idealist conception of revolution even causes them to refuse to support or defend any force fighting for national liberation internationally or any revolution actually happening in the world. FRSO sees it as our internationalist duty to support all forces fighting against U.S. imperialism. This includes the heroic fighters landing real blows against U.S. imperialism’s plans for domination around the world, such as the Iraqi resistance, the Palestinian resistance (including the Popular Front of the Liberation of Palestine), and the Colombian rebels, such as the FARC-EP).
This approach is the opposite of Socialist Alternative, which often denounces the socialist countries and movements that are fighting for national liberation and socialism.
As revolutionaries in the U.S. we see it as important to support and to study and learn from those whose struggles against U.S. imperialism are more advanced than the struggle here. FRSO also supports the countries that have actually made socialist revolutions such as Cuba, Vietnam, China and Democratic Korea. We also support countries and movements that are moving in the direction of socialism such as in Venezuela and Nepal. We see any nail in the coffin of imperialism as being a struggle we can unite with and learn from.
Marxist-Leninists in the U.S. have a responsibility to support revolutionary movements around the world, while we do the work step-by-step to build a movement for revolutionary change here in the U.S. We can not afford to adopt the silly and sectarian approach of Socialist Alternative. We need to stand in solidarity with all who are fighting imperialism, be it at home or abroad. “Criticizing” anarchists who are facing prison for making contributions to the people struggle is not the right thing to do. Standing on the side and criticizing the building of a more militant movement is not the right thing to do either.

Just when you thought
Just when you thought freedom road couldn't get any more irrelevant, bashing other groups in some sort of vain attempt to understand their situation. Yar, the SA/YAWR march was boring...but it beats sitting on a bridge, waiting to get arrested, and then bizarrely acting like you're so darn militant. If you're going to do something lame it's better not to get 400 people arrested while doing it...what a disheartening way to go out after the first three days.
Lets talk about the substantive questions raised
Some questions for the above 'anonymous' commenter: if FRSO is as irrelevant as you say, why did you bother to respond to their analysis? This either means both FRSO and you are equally irrelevant, or FRSO's analysis is relevant and rather than engage it you have for some reason chosen to malign them without engaging the substance of what is said. Either way it doesn't speak very well of you.
Lets look at the substantive issues raised around the RNC protests. Do you have any opinion on these issues?
* Do you think it's ok for Socialist Alternative to print articles disparaging the RNC Welcoming Committee and calling them "isolated" while eight Welcoming Committee members face 7+ years in prison on bogus terrorism charges and they need as much support as they can get to defeat those charges? I think FRSO is right to say that's not ok, and to call SA out on that.
* Do you think it makes sense for revolutionaries to argue against more militant protest tactics across the board for the foreseeable future until some theoretical future time when a majority of the working class can be somehow proven to support such tactics? Do you think unpermitted protests are wrong on principle in the current context? That is what it seems SA argues and believes. I think the view put out by FRSO in this article is right, and SA's is wrong. I think SA's across the board rejection of more militant and unpermitted protest tactics is wrong, is conservative, and is indeed mechanical (not dialectical) in that it creates an artificial division on the spectrum of protest and resistance tactics, and rules out anything that the government says we can't do.
* What do you think about Socialist Alternative's criticism of the RNC Welcoming Committee for choosing to particularly focus on organizing anarchists and anti-authoritarians to confront the RNC? I think this criticism of the WC is wrong, and FRSO is principled and correct to defend the Welcoming Committee's organizing in the anarchist community to confront the RNC.
There are of course more points to talk about, but these are some key ones. I'd like to know what "anonymous" (and others!) thinks of these questions of substance, not his puzzling bellyaching about the Day 4 No Peace for the Warmakers demonstration, which pretty much everyone I've talked to who was there sees as one of the highlights of the RNC protests.
Hey "leftspot". I make no
Hey "leftspot". I make no claims to my own relevancy. Yet, discussing something doesn't necessarily make it relevant. People spend most of their days talking about irrelevant stuff. Freedom road admits it thinks it is irrelevant in itsanalysis when it says there were up to 35,000 people there. Anybody who was there knows there wasn't that many people there. What's the shame in giving a more accurate estimate? Do they think saying that there were 10-20 thousand people makes them irrelevant? I may be irrelevant, but I don't walk around telling people there are 35,000 of me to make me seem more relevant. Not that there is anything necessarily irrelevant about what the actual number of people there were, but they seem to think there is. FRSO is irrelevant because when a revolution comes, they, like plenty of other small activists groups, will still be in their ivory towers writing boring hootenanny about the "science" of marxism like somebody cares.
To get to your points...I have to say I read the SA thing whenever it was put out, and my reaction was "i agree with some of this, and some of it I don't agree with". It wasn't "wow, jackasses" like when I read this.
1) I think it's okay for SA to write whatever they want, and frso to write whatever they want. It's not a "with us, or against us" thing, and frso isn't a cowboy president. I'm rather sure the people facing jail know they have the support of everybody inside the radical community and many outside as well, whether or not we all march in lockstep.
2) That's where SA comes down on it. I tend to disagree with them, but if they don't want to be militant, nobody is going to force them to. And they (or YAWR rather) have had some success, which can't be said for other groups. So if the ends justify the means of being militant, then the ends can also justify the means of not being militant. I'm also pretty sure you are simplifying their actual position. As in the above comment, you seem to be making things completely black and white, when that's really not the way it is. I was at the SA rally earlier on the 4th day. It was boring, I left to get lunch, as did many other people. I was at the anti-war rally later on in the day which you refer to as well, it was lame, I left, as did many other people, after sitting on a bridge for nearly an hour waiting for cops to gas us only to get up and go to a different bridge to wait for cops to gas us. Even if the intentions were militant, sitting down waiting to be gassed isn't militant, that's just turning people into victims.
3) There are a ton of anarchists who make the same claims. I think I agree with them. I forget what exactly SA said about it, and I don't really care. I understand that the purpose of the RNC-WC was to bring anarchists to the twin cities, and that's what they did, and so they succeeded and they don't deserve any criticism for setting a goal to achieve and then achieving it. This is extremely rare today, and they should get a lot of credit for that. In 100 years twin cities anarchists will still look back on the RNC as a success, I think. This says a lot about the good organizing that went down. That also doesn't mean that there were things that could have been done better. But either way, from what I remember from the SA piece it echoed things that many anarchists have said about the way we protest and the way we organize. There's no reason to be that offended by what SA said, or, conversely, to care that much about what SA said. There's also no reason to care about what some other socialist group who was offended by what SA said has to say. And so I thought I owed it to you to reply to your specific questions...I truly don't care that much about who frso wants to piss off this time and will step out.
It important to talk about what should -or should not- be done!
There are a lot of things to cover here, and as a member of both FRSO and the Anti-War Committee (organizers of the protest criticized by anonymous), I feel the need to respond on both levels...
About the Day 4 protest by the Anti-War Committee
The goal of the Anti-War Committee's protest on day 4 was to counter McCain's nomination speech, to stay in the streets for as long as possible to do that, and to do so with hundreds of people who were united not by ideology, but rather by common opposition to the war. The protest stayed focused on the war, it stayed in the streets for hours, while TV viewers watched the RNC proceedings, over and over, they saw cuts to the anti-war protest unfolding in the streets outside.
As for the tactics used during the protest itself... There were some attempts to break the police line, but it was not possible to do with a thousand people, who were mostly not prepared to do so - many were at their first protest. When folks sat, it was in response to horses (because they don't like to step on people, folks hoped that a wall of sitting people on them would prevent them from charging a crowd). At various times, we used the bullhorn we had at the front to get input from the part of the crowd that could hear us, and make decisions together; unfortunately, not more than a couple hundred people could hear and participate in that decision-making. Most of the moves we did make were based on input from 100-200 people.
There is a great deal to be learned about tactics - and I too left with a sense that more must be possible. It would be lovely to have a discussion about that, rather than be ripped on for not leaving when we got bored "waiting to be gassed." Of course, those who stayed didn't see it that way. I believe our presence was important that day - and more so because hundreds of us did wait it out.
As for the main discussion on this article...
* The St. Paul Principles, including the commitment not to denounce one another, was a positive development from the RNC (which likely to be not only remembered, but re-used, for years to come). All of our work benefited from the decision of major groups to join in this, including not denouncing one another's tactics and protests at the RNC. The mainstream media was desperately looking for the story of good protester versus bad - we didn't give it to them. Instead, everyday, the story was protesters against the RNC.
* Sure, everyone CAN do what they want. And then we can all look at how that worked out, and come to some conclusions about what's effective, what's needed and what's right. There is a need for more confrontational tactics, and the protests at the RNC proved that hundreds of protesters are ready for just that. I will add, the Anti-War Committee is another group, that according to you, deserves no "criticism for setting a goal to achieve and then achieving it." Cheers to the AWC for getting in the streets and staying there, countering McCain's war message for hours!
* Let's talk about relevance...... What exactly is the criteria for this? What makes an organization or its work relevant? While I think 30-35000 is a reasonable estimate, and it was the official estimate from the Day One march organizers... let us suppose your numbers are right (did you get those directly from the Star Tribune & St. Paul Police Department, or do your own counting?): Does 10-20,000 reflect any relevancy? Does attending several demonstrations and leaving them early out of boredom and impatience demonstrate a relevant engagement in the struggle for social change?
When you talk about Ivory Towers, are you referring to the wanna-be ivy league colleges FRSO members neither attend or teach at? I mean really! FRSO isn't sitting around waiting for some miraculous revolutionary moment. Instead, we've rolled up our sleeves, and just as we did in September, FRSO will be in the streets every day, building ever-more powerful people's movements that can win real justice and peace, at home and abroad.
It would be wonderful to have a real dialogue about what can and should be done, today and every day, to challenge the existing order of things.
Just wanted to add that
Just wanted to add that since you mentioned the st. paul principles, my comments are in no way meant to bash the agreements made at all or any tactics used by any groups or even demean anybody who did stay on day 4, in case that is misinterpreted by anyone. I didn't leave on day 4 because I was bored, I left because I was bored and didn't want to be arrested for being bored in one place where I could freely be bored in anywhere else. The idea surrounding the day 4 march was good...obviously things didn't go ideally because people didn't make it over the bridge. I stayed until I was sure that there was going to be no attempt to get over the bridge. It was a new tactic and people really weren't sure what to do. Lots of people like myself left because they wanted to get into downtown and knew there was a chance of being arrested but didn't want to get arrested just for sitting on a bridge after it was obvious we weren't getting through. Many of us were at Funk the War as well as the post-Rage march/poor peoples march, and we knew the risks. Sitting down is an excellent temporary tactic...after an hour it gets stale to some who prefer marches to be pro-active. I think you recognize that based on the above. I was just juxtaposing that tactic to SA's tactic, which accomplished just as much *in the long run* even if it wasn't as theatrical and had no arrests and police gassings.
10-20,000 is an estimate based on nothing but personal experience of rallies that I have been to AT the state capital that had organizer estimates from groups who don't inflate their numbers of at least 35,000 and were at least two-three times as big as day one as well as other marchers. I have no idea what the strib had to say about the crowd size, to be honest with you.
This could go on obviously. I just thought there were unnecessary bashings of SA that somebody should address...it would be better if somebody from SA actually did so, of course. I honestly don't care that much about the struggle anymore, some things are better off left to the professionals, like sa, frso, and the too long list of other fractured groups. I've spent too much of my life struggling. I was there to bask in the excitement of resistance, mission definitely accomplished. But stuff like this is the reason that people who care start not to care. I regret adding to that in any way I did.