Evaluating the success of a rally:

Hands off Cuba and Venezuela!

Washington, DC 20 May 2006--About 500 people held a rally for "Hands off Cuba and Venezuela." Marchers chanted against democracy's being controlled by an elite. There were banners to free native leader Leonard Peltier, free the Cuban Five and for Venezuela's relationship with Iran. We heard a very short pep talk to free Puerto Rico too and there were banners for African Liberation Day, May 25th.

We were happy to attend the rally and oppose Uncle $am's economic blockade on Cuba and CIA coup attempts against elected bourgeois politician Chavez in Venezuela; even though we do not see Castro or Chavez as models.

The endorsements list had almost as many people as the rally. There seemed to be good cooperation among the participants, mostly Trotskyists. In rough order of numerical significance, there were contingents from Workers World Party, Socialist Workers Party, Freedom Socialist Party, "World Can't Wait" and some more hard-core Trotskyist splinter groups.

The organizers did hard work putting up posters for the rally. The posters and their big black letters were highly visible in the surrounding neighborhoods.

The rally seemed to happen at the right time and place. Trotskyists of various shades had publicized the rally up and down the East Coast, especially at the migrant rallies, in both English and Spanish.

The initial gathering point at Malcolm X Park was close to the heavily Latino and chic Adams-Morgan district. Despite the timing, place and mechanical sociology of the event, organizers must have been disappointed with the turnout.

We say "mechanical sociology" to refer to a common way of thinking in political activist circles "aiming" at a certain "social base." Evidently, talking about Venezuela does not guarantee a Latino turnout.

There is a lesson that we need to draw out from time to time. We call it "mechanical sociology," because the reasoning is too simple--going straight from point A to point B without struggle. Mechanical sociology lands us in identity politics where the correctness or otherwise of one's politics stems from the individual's ethnic background.

First of all, generalizations about ethnicity are just that--generalizations true at the group level, not the individual level. Secondly, the sociology does not come into play without a struggle.

So for example, had the bourgeois press covered an invasion of Cuba in recent days, we're sure the turnout would have been higher. On the other hand, Uncle $am's blockade does not register as well in public opinion as war by occupying troops.

Another lesson we can learn from this particular rally is actually quite important but difficult. It has to do with numbers and unity of so-called socialist groups inside u.$. borders.

At this rally Trotskyism and the old "Communist Party USA" united. The Trotskyists allowed the Freedom Socialist Party to speak for example, so there was no attempt to hog the whole rally.

We often hear that the so-called socialist organizations should all unite and then there would be victory for them in the united $tates. This is not true. The Trotskyist spectrum did unite today, but the result was not earth-shaking. That is how it would be for any unity of "socialists" inside u.$. borders.

When we blame the political leaders for not being able to walk on water, we engage in a form of historical idealism. Instead, we need to learn when material conditions are to blame for the lack of a movement.

In truth, the bourgeoisie is going to organize most of our socialist revolution in spite of itself. In the Soviet case, the tsar organized the army and then the army fell apart and used its internal organization for revolution. Today, the migrant movement stems from national and religious organization. The migrant movement is not a result of heroic individual communist leadership or even a combination of parties. Such a view that leadership created the migrant movement or lack of a Cuba solidarity movement is idealism--a lack of attachment to reality that hurts our movement.

Even the trade union is not going to play a role in the U.$. revolution, except among migrant workers. What leaders can affect is the direction of a movement, possibly.

Uniting all 500 people today was good for a rally, but the same unity shows the limits of what uniting the left-wing of white nationalism can accomplish. Numbers are good for self-assurance, but what else could we accomplish with all the people that showed up today is the question that people need to ponder more deeply. The Amerikans are the last people who should give up scientific struggle for the sake of an easy-going unity. There is not much to gain from an easy-going unity and everything to lose in terms of ideological quality. Comrades who struggle to reach a higher quality of political understanding can still do their "share" of internationalist preparations for a communist future--regardless of what the rest of the u.$. population is doing or what class it comes from.

The Trotskyists worked hard for this event today. People did not turn out to stop the blockade of Cuba or Uncle $am's interference in Venezuela. Shame on the u.$. population for that.