The Cleveland Conference: What Did It All Mean?

CLEVELAND, OHIO sprawls comfortably just south of polluted Lake Erie. The city does not appear crowded. The expensive Tudor mansions along Fairmont Boulevard give way gradually to the apartments in Shaker Heights, which in turn, lead to the ghetto. Hugh Calkins '45 is from Cleveland. Kent State is 50 miles away.

A week ago Cleveland was the site of a gathering of the clan- or rather, a gathering of two clans. The Sheraton-Cleveland is a large, expensive hotel. Its lobby is not much different from the lobbies of the other hotels in this county where rich people stay. This particular night, the Grand Ballroom was being rented by the Cuyahoga-Lake Division of the Ohio Republican Finance Committee. The purpose was a $250-a-plate dinner to raise money for the Republicans. The featured speaker was the Vice-President of the United States.

The chairman of the finance committee was H. Stuart Harrison. Mrs. Harrison is also chairman of the board of Cleveland-Cliffe Iron Co. Over 1400 people attended the dinner that night, and at $250 a throw, that meant more than a quarter million dollars was raised.

Across town, another group of 1400 people was meeting. They came from across the country. These people were considerably younger than those who sat at the tables in the Grand Ballroom. They were meeting in the auditoriums and classrooms of the Cuyahoga Community College. Their reason for gathering was to attend a National Emergency Conference Against the Cambodia-Laos-Vietnam War.

The Conference was called by the Cleveland Area Peace Action Council. In the long list of sponsors of the Conference were the names of Noam Chomsky, Dick Gregory, Fred Halstead and Everett I. Mendelsohn, professor of the History of Science. There were also representatives of the Berkely Strike Coordinating Committee, the National Chicago Moratorium, the Student Mobilization Committee, the San Francisco Peace and Freedom Party, and the Chicago Women's Liberation Union.

Perhaps most interesting were the large number of union executives such as the Vice President of the International Association of Firefighters, or the Chairman of the Black Caucus of Local 481 of the American Federation of Teachers in Newark. Conspicuous by their absence on the list of sponsors were the Black Panther Party, Students for a Democratic Society, and the Progressive Labor Party.

BUT THERE was a big difference between who sponsored the conference and who actually showed up. The big names like Dick Gregory or Noam Chomsky were not in evidence. Despite the large number of unions supporting the conference, most of the participants were students. The conference itself was essentially a struggle between the Student Mobilization Committee-Young Socialist Alliance faction and the Students for a Democratic Society-Progressive Labor Party faction. Most of the other, smaller groups contented themselves with manning their literature tables and did not engage much in the rhetorical battles waged by the bigger groups.

Two small groups, however, did provide a sort of comic relief to the main struggle. One of them, the Worker's League, spent most of its time attacking another small group called the Sparticists. The Sparticists, in turn, constantly accused the Workers' League of having sold out. The ideological differences between the two groups are purported to be so subtle that even the most astute observers do not know what they are.

On the other hand, the split between SMC-YSA and SDS-PL is significant. It revolves about a conflicting view of the nature of the struggle, both in terms of tactics, and in the terms of the ultimate goal. The conflict is not taken lightly by the organization. Recently at M. I. T. there were fistfights between the two factions. In March, at the Boston Moratorium, run by the SMC, SDS had to storm the stage to get a speaker. Earlier, at the November March on Washington, run by the New Mob, some people crowded around the speakers platform were most reluctant to let Senator Goodell speak, and those running the show feared that the platform would be rushed, splitting of political hairs. The garments as rhetorical quibbling and upon first being exposed to the kind of debates that went on in the auditorium, one is tempted to see the arguticipants were intense- very intense. Most of the conference was conducted by shouting, and speakers were frequently interrupted by screams of angre from their ropponents. At times whole sections of the audie shout in unison such "BULLSHIT" or "POWER TO THE WORKERS," depending upon the ideology of the speaker. Several times the meeting broke down completely, and the chairman could exert no control as people shouted back and forth across the room at each other, pointing accusing fingers at their opponents.

Some of the debates were in fact petty. One had only to remember the various mass meetings the Harvard community has tried to hold- or recall meetings of the Harvard Faculty- and it was clear that mass meetings in general are chaotic and full of emotions which afterwards seems out of proportion to the magnitude of the problem being discussed.

One had also to realize that the auditorium was not filled with people who were there to listen quietly. Many of the people there had been leaders in their local communities and were used to giving speeches and disagreeing with people. The number of followers in the room was small. Most of the people in that room were leaders. Most of them were angry. They were angry at the society whose evils they were so familiar with. They were used to directing their anger at officials around them. Brought together in one room, they turned their anger upon each other.

THE SDS-PL group felt the SMC was trying to sell out the movement to the hands of liberal politicians, whose sincerity was dubious. They were sensitive to the fact that the SMC is financed by Cyrus Eaton, an industrialist. They felt that the conference had dealt with union leaders, but not with the rank and file members. They attacked the non-exclusionary sentiment of the SMC group which would allow the movement to tolerate liberal politicians who happened to be against the war.

The SMC group, on the other hand, felt that SDS and PL were being unrealistic and were likely to isolate the movement by attacking too many people. They were in favor of constructing an alliance with those forces in power which would be helpful in ending the war. They felt that SDS and PL were too concerned about the purity of the allies that SMC wanted to use.

In a situation where being against the Vietnam war can mean anything from supporting Vietnamization to wanting victory for the National Liberation Front, the subtleties of political stances can be very confusing. To label one SDS-PL and the other SMC-YSA is on oversimplification.

The essence of the problem is that there are several splits within the left ?? may solidify in the next few ?? into one basic division. Splintering in the left is an old phenomenon. Some of the groups at the conference split up from each other decades ago. What has intensified the situation, however, is the involvement in the antiwar movement of the liberal segment of the country. There are many different reasons for being against the Vietnam war, and the unification of those with different motives has led to some strange bedfellows. As the former allies become more intimately acquainted, they begin to see that their unity is illusory.

One can be against the war because the situation at home is getting out of control. This leaves open the question of whether you want to bring the troops home and put the money saved into improving black housing, or whether you want to bring them back and put down black rebellions. Those who want to end the war to reestablish the credibility of the federal government have little in common with those who want to overthrow that government.

One of the key ways to separate these two groups is by their views on racism. Those who are against the war, but refuse to take a stand on racism are looked on suspiciously by those committed to broad social change.

Another distinction which emerged very clearly at the conference, was that the group running the conference wanted to get the support of union leaders in the anti-war movement, while the opponents of this group regard many union leaders as part of the establishment, willing to sell out their rank and file members. They point to wildcat strikes and the upcoming miners' strike to show that to get a meaningful strike, workers often have to go against their union leaders.

For one group of people, ending the war is their major concern. For another, the war is just a manifestation of the sickness of the whole system. It is part of a society which they view as racist, imperialist and male chauvinist. They feel that after the war is over, only the beginning will have been made in making this society what it should be.

Another of the lines along which this division is drawn is that of violence. The more moderate group feels that violence will only alienate the rest of society, and is basically useless. The other group is suspicious of those who draw the line at violence, feeling what they may really be objecting to is the possibility of rebellion.

THESE DIVISIONS emerged at a conference workshop of high school students. One group argued not only that the war should be fought against, but that racism should be attacked. The other group of high school students said that one should concentrate on the war. Since the war was racist, they reasoned, then by fighting against the war, you were also fighting racism. This same group felt the movement should allow liberals to talk at rallies, and support a "contest of ideas." On the other hand, a high school student whose baggy blue jeans sported a battered copy of the writings of Mao Tse-Tung, described how he had been kicked out of school for leafletting against the liberal Father Drinan. He was trying to show his young colleagues that liberals might not be all they thought them to be.

In the plenary session Saturday afternoon, there was a lengthy dis-

cussion of whether there should be a demonstration against the Vice-President at the Sheraton-Cleveland. The SDS-PL group put forward the idea that there should not only be a demonstration against Agnew, but also one against Mayor Carl Stokes. They claimed that Stokes was against the workers, even though he was black. They referred to the calling out of the National Guard to break the postal workers' strike. The planners of the conference wanted instead only to have a peaceful and orderly demonstration in front of the Sheraton against Agnew.

In the course of the heated discussion. Peter Camejo of the Socialist Workers Party gave a speech which managed to inflame the passions of the members of PL. Starting off slowly and with control, he would gradually increase the speed and fervor of his remarks until he reached a shrill, unintelligible climax which would be drowned out in the applause of the moderate group, and the angry cries of the PL members. He said PL did not want to align with any sell outs, and then accused PL of feeling that everyone was a sellout except themselves.

Another speaker got up and said. "The workers of this country are gonna fight against the likes of Stokes . . . The people are tired, they are damned tired of these liberal sellouts." He received a standing ovation after that and then added, "Liberals and conservatives are two sides of the same coin."

Later, a Veteran for Peace said he wanted to urge people not to attend a demonstration where people might get hurt, namely the planned SDS demonstration against Mayor Stokes. Another person then rose to say he wanted to stay in the auditorium and discuss the future of the antiwar movement, which was supposedly the purpose of the conference. "I did not come 2000 miles to go to another demonstration," he said. Harry Ring, the editor of the Militant, then got up and said he opposed a demonstration against Mayor Stokes. He said the black people of Cleveland were under an illusion, and their "level of consciousness" was such that they would not march agonist Mayor Stokes.

Several times during the debate, disillusioned participants who evidently had not expected such invective among the factions, got up and said how disappointed they were. One man said, "If I were to choose a group with which to align myself after seeing what went on here. I would choose to join the janitors in the wings."

The motion to demonstrate against Agnew or Agnew-and-Stokes was then put to a vote, and the moderate proposal won. This part of the meeting had been chaired by Dan Gurewitz, national coordinator of SMC.

The rest of the afternoon was taken up with discussion of what the future tactics of the antiwar movement should be. The meeting broke up in time for the demonstration against Agnew.

At 7: 30 there was a rally in front of the Sheraton-Cleveland, and members of the SMC-YSA group, as well as a GI and a labor union leader, addressed the crowd. After awhile, a group broke off from the main demonstration of about 2000 people, and marched over to the city hall. About 300 people took part in this, the demonstration that SDS had been planning. The crowd gathered on the front steps of the city hall- which was closed- and listened to several speeches. About a dozen police cars filled with helmeted policemen lined the streets near the city hall. Prominent in the front seat of each car was the muzzle of a tear gas rifle. The situation was tense, but the rally went off without incident. Across the street was a large green truck. On its roof long cameras with microphones slowly and silently turned around, recording the rally and the people standing around it.

THE NEXT DAY the plenary session continued with a discussion of tactics. Jerry Gordon, the chairmen of the Cleveland Area Peace Action Council, the group which organized the conference, was sitting near the front. He was a middle-aged fellow with close- cropped hair. He looked exhausted. I asked him what he felt about the conference. He lamented the fact that SDS and PL had "obscured" the issues, but he felt that was just part of the overhead of having an open conference. When asked who was running the conference, he became even sadder, and said intensely, "The people are running this. To say anybody else is running this thing is ridiculous. The people are running it."

He said that SMC was not getting along well with the New Mobe, a group he called "a bunch of generals without an army." He claimed they were moving into civil disobedience, which in his opinion, was not what the majority of people in the movement wanted. New Mobe had called a conference for the week following the Cleveland conference. Jerry Gordon emphasized that he was concerned with an anti-war movement. He made little mention of other issues such as racism or imperialism.

Meanwhile, in the conference being run by the people, there was a lot of dissatisfaction with the chairman. Various proposals were on the floor about what the future of the movement should involve. The majority of speakers seemed to be in favor of a resolution introduced by Jerry Gordon and Jim Lafferty. Members of the audience were calling for equal time for those who wanted to speak for and against the proposal. One man had been trying to raise a point of order for fifteen minutes. The chairman said he would not stop in midbreath to deal with it.

As time went by, however, the man with the point of order became more annoyed. He finally stood up and kept shouting that he wanted to be heard. The chairman, unable to continue, said he would have a vote by the body to see if they wanted to hear the point of order. Dan Siegal, former president of the Berkeley Association of Students, then took over the chair. "The ruling of the chair as I understand it," he said, "is to go on with the agenda and not stop for all this procedural bullshit all the time." This was greeted with cries of rage, and so he was forced to take a vote on whether the body wanted to overrule the chair. The vote was held, and was overwhelmingly against the chair.

"The chair is clearly upheld," said Siegal. This was too much for the audience, and they started screaming at him. He held another vote, which was evenly distributed, probably because no one was clear on what they were voting for. Again, Siegal claimed the chair was clearly upheld. People began standing in the aisles and velling. The marshalls started yelling "SIT DOWN," but were drowned out by the countercries of "LET HIM SPEAK." There was general chaos for at least ten minutes.

Finally, one of the speakers who had been already recognized gave up his time so that the point of order could be made. The point of order was that there should be some speakers from SDS and PL, and more people allowed to speak against the Lafferty proposal. It was pointed out by the man who raised the point of order that the chairmen who had refused to recognize him was none other than Jim Lafferty himself, the man whose proposal was being discussed on the floor. In the ensuing vote on whether SDS and PL should be allowed to speak, the audience overwhelming supported them.

THE SDS AND PL speakers were followed by a Workers' League speaker who charged that the movement was "liberal to the core."

A woman's workshop tried to get their proposal on the floor. It accused the conference of having been run in a male chauvinist manner. They were told that their proposal would be taken up later with the proposals of the other workshops.

The proposal by Jerry Gordon and Jim Lafferty, the SMC-YSA proposal, suggested four tactics the movement should use. They called for:

a summer of intensive organizing and educational work:

local anti-war demonstrations on August 6-9, the period from Hiroshima Day to Nagasaki Day:

support for the August 29 Chicano Moratorium:

a day of nationally coordinated massive anti-war demonstration on Saturday, October 31.

The SDS-PL proposal called for the following specific actions:

a demonstration on June 20 against Stokes as well as Agnew:

action in summer schools across the country to fight ROTC, military research, and police institutes:

leafletting of workers about the war:

organization of a national working:

support for upcoming strikes by workers;

support for black rebellions;

fighting male chauvinism;

organization of a large demonstration in early August.

The motivation given with the proposals provides an understanding of their differences. The SMC proposal said. "Mass demonstrations remain the anti-war movements' most effective method for communicating its message to, and involving, the largest numbers of people. By the sheer weight of numbers that can be assembled at a given time and place, the movement gains credibility and visibility... The job of the anti-war movement is to educate, organize and mobilize tens of millions of people to hasten the day when those with the power to change governmental policy use that power to end the war."

The SMC proposal said that workers should be dealt with through their union leadership. It advocated working from the top down: "where official union endorsement is forth-coming this should be publicized by the anti-war movement in literature designed for distribution at plant gates and places where workers gather." The SMC cited anti-war demonstrations held by the trade union movement in the aftermath of Cambodia. They saw this development as "a break with AFL-CIO President George Meaney's policy of abject support to the war."

The proposal further called for a policy of non-exclusion, aimed at allowing anyone, including liberals, to speak at their rallies. It also called for nonviolence. "Confrontational adventures hurt the movement by alienating otherwise sympathetic sections of the population, particularly labor and Black and Brown peoples."

A survey printed in the Cleveland Plain Dealer the day of the conference showed that 50 per cent of the black soldiers in Vietnam were planning to use weapons to gain their rights back home.

The SDS proposal presented a biting class analysis of the situation. It repudiated much of the union leadership and called for a worker-student alliance, especially a coalition among students and campus workers. Liberal politicians, SMC and YSA were attacked for having the same interests and underlying goals as the conservatives. They were seen as anti-labor and racist.

After more debate Sunday afternoon, the SMC proposal was passed by a two-to-one margin over the SDS proposal. With that the conference was over. It will not be the last such conference this summer, however. The New Mobe has called a conference for June 26-27 in Milwaukee. The Black Panthers have issued a call for a People's Revolutionary Constitutional Convention to be held September 7 in Philadelphia.

By the end of the conference, it was clear that what the SMC still wants is more mass demonstrations. They want them to be peaceful and well-marshalled. Their primary concern is the war. Other pressing problems such as racism were mentioned only in passing. Workers were related to in two ways- they would be Leafleted, and their union leaders would be encouraged to speak at anti-war rallies.

SDS, on the other hand, calls for intensive organizing around concrete aspects of the military, such as ROTC and military research. The issues of concern are not just the war, but also racism, male chauvinism and unemployment. Workers are seen as potential allies. SDS encourages coalitions among students and campus workers and urges support for striking workers.

While SMC is more palatable to middle class Americans, and achieves the support of liberal senators- its focus is only on the war. SDS, while often alienating people, is struggling to break down some of the barriers which divide the American people. They call for support of black people; they call for support of women. They are also trying to deal with the division of worker and student.

It is difficult to say whether SDS will be able to accomplish its goals, or whether it will become too uncompromising, and isolate itself. On the other hand, although large demonstrations may be a way of bringing new people into the movement, there are growing numbers of people who are tired of marching.