Steve Ault, an old (not so old - I've just known him a long time) and trusted comrade from the gay/lesbian community, drafted this letter which I think deserves a wider audience than it got. He is wrong on a minor issue of spelling or grammar or the date of the Hungarian Revolution (1956, not 1957) but this record of the past regarding Workers World is very much "current" as we tangle with them, IAC, and ANSWER. David McReynolds
<< I would like to distance myself from Corn's analysis with which I had a number of problems. Further, the controversy over single issue vs. multi-issue strategy has been festering in the peace and social justice movement since I can remember and transcends the particulars raised about WWP. Below is a response I wrote a year or two ago to a query about my experiences with Workers World Party. But before that, I would like to mention that I too was initially impressed with their personal style, helpfulness, support and competency. What a refreshing contrast to cadre from other groups who would act like automatons spewing forth ideological technobabble for hours on end. But, alas, according to some ex WWP friends of mine -- and as I had grown to suspect -- the hail-fellow-well-met personae is a conscious and integral aspect of their organizing strategy -- and is a useful foil for their stalinist politics and manipulative and unprincipled "process."
-----------------
My first encounter with WWP was in early 1976 while organizing for the bicentennial protest in Philadelphia. As a representative of a gay organization, my request for a seat on the steering committee of the organizing group, the July 4th Coalition, was met with some hostility. We were supported by Youth Against War and Fascism (YAWF), the front group for WWP, and also by Dave Dellinger whose strong endorsement of our participation turned out to be decisive. In the course of organizing for the action, the YAWF people continued to be friendly and supportive.
At around the same time or perhaps a year later I became involved with the Committee of Lesbian and Gay Male Socialists which included a number of people from WWP. Although I strongly disagreed with their support of the Soviet invasions of Hungary and Czechoslovakia, I believed there was sufficient common ground for working together.
As co-coordinator of the first March on Washington for Lesbian and Gay Rights in 1979, I came to the defense of WWP against a red-baiting campaign to keep "the commies" out of the march and rally.
As will become apparent, it is necessary to describe the following in considerable detail. Around the time Reagan took office in 1981, WWP started to form the People's Antiwar Mobilization (PAM) for the purpose of organizing a march on Washington against U.S. intervention in El Salvador and elsewhere in Central America. And given my previous positive interactions with WWP, they asked me to join the coalition, and yes, they definitely used the word "coalition" which I took at face value.
I soon learned that the Socialist Workers Party (SWP), long a bitter rival of WWP, (In fact, the latter formed as a split from the former over disagreement about the Soviet invasion of Hungary in 1957 which the SWP opposed.) was also planning to organize a similar protest action. I was not exactly a fan of the SWP given the manipulative role they had played in the lesbian and gay movement and in particular their attempts at sabotaging the 1979 March on Washington. There was a big showdown in DC with many organizations attending. WWP outmaneuvered the SWP and gained control of the action. Their success was in large part the result of bringing a sizable number of groups into their coalition.
But once the SWP threat passed, WWP started to assert control. The leadership formed an outreach committee mostly of people not affiliated with WWP. So, we did our work, part of which we thought included meeting with peace and social justice groups for the purpose of broadening the coalition by bringing them on board. This apparently was a no no. We were told not to speak to any groups about joining the coalition.
Interest in the idea of a big action to greet the new Reagan Administration was growing quickly with major organizations including the War Resisters League, Mobilization for Survival, Clergy and Laity Concerned, the U.S. Peace Council, and others wishing to join. Their participation was thwarted at meetings of PAM where we were instructed that these organizations were not sufficiently militant and their inclusion would only serve to dilute the purpose and politics of the event. The fact that the U.S. Peace Council was closely associated with the Communist Party U.S.A. made it clear to me that the real concern here was not about ideology but rather of control.
The other organizations formed a coalition of their own (I think it was called the May 3rd Coalition). It became necessary for the two coalitions to meet to work out logistics, the program, etc. There was a contentious issue about the route with the May 3rd people arguing that the one proposed by PAM was too confrontational and jeopardized the participation of less radical organizations and people. Quite frankly, I couldn't see how marching past the Pentagon was so provocative except for the possibility of evoking memories of the 1967 action there where people (including myself) were gassed and bludgeoned. Nevertheless, it seemed that the strategic importance of broadening the base of support and providing a foundation for a protracted struggle against the Reagan Administration outweighed a logistical consideration.
Eventually, the two coalitions had to decided on the route. After a meeting that seemed to last two full days, it was decided that a delegation of 10 from the May 3rd Coalition would meet with a delegation of 13 from PAM. The level of contentiousness in PAM between independents, who were outnumbered two to one, and WWP people kept increasing. The shit hit the fan when WWP railroaded through a motion to force the entire delegation of 13 to vote as a block even though the body was split on the issue. Essentially, those among the 13 who were independents were commanded to ignore instructions from the very organizations they were representing and instead take their orders from the dominating WWP operatives controlling PAM!
At that point it became quite obvious that we "independents" were invited to join PAM to give WWP the credibility it needed to win its initial battle with the SWP. It became equally clear that PAM was intended to function as a front group for the WWP all along.
This all happened a long time ago. Is there evidence that WWP has changed? Not really. In 1987, as co-chair of the second March on Washington for Lesbian and Gay Rights, I was involved in a search to fill the position of NYC coordinator. A competent individual stepped forward and it seemed he would get the position. But then, a person who is arguably the best demonstration organizer in the country let it be known that she was available. The choice was a no-brainer and we were elated â€" except for a person from WWP whose protestations were really about losing the opportunity to manipulate and control the NYC committee.
Another big struggle developed around protests over the Gulf War in 1991. A WWP controlled "coalition" announced an action in DC while a broader grouping that by necessity was moving at a slower pace was forming. A big meeting was held with all groups attending. When WWP lost on a vote for a proposed date (college students in attendance said the date would minimize their participation) they walked out and organized a separate demonstration around their own date. This time the two coalitions could not come together and two separate demonstrations were held.
Tactics employed by WWP and other sectarians (they are hardly alone) include exploiting divisions within coalitions and organizations by rallying behind what they perceive as being the most radical or progressive elements. In doing this they bully everyone else and weaken the body which is their wont. Very frequently the tactic involves manipulating the issues of race and racism, the act of which serves in reality to demean and diminish these issues. WWP is especially adept at this. Or, if one should voice support for the people of Tibet or condemn the massacre in Tienamen Square, the accusation of red-baiting is hurled. More often than not their modus operandi seems to be "run it or wreck it" or if you wish, "rule it or ruin it."
People's attention is scarce. Do not abuse it.