From: MD575151-AT-aol.com
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 15:54:24 -0400
Subject: Why one should support the Labor Party, USA.


     Earlier this week I had made some comments on the Labor Party.  Mainly
my arguement was that the Party needed, and deserved, the support of all
socialists.  I still stand by that beleif.  However, many comments made by
Jim Miller have convinced me that my stand has to be somewhat modified.
 Therefore I would like to deal with a few comments of his that I feel are
important.
     
>   I disagree with Mike that the new Labor Party is a "proletarian
>party." It is a maneuver carried out by a non-proletarian labor
>officialdom. 

      The term "proletarian party" is somewhat general.  I had used the term
without thinking of all it implied.  The Labor Party is a party consisting of
thousands of proletarians.  It is controlled, however, by "non-proletarian
officialdom".  Though controlled by sellouts, there are thousands of workers
willing to fight for a better world.  If one claims that this party is not a
threat to the existing order I urge them to take a look at the party's
constitution.  That document is the expression of thousands of workers.
 Obviously I beleive much needs to be added to the document, but,
nonetheless, I am suprised by the radicalism of the work.  Sweeny fears the
party, so he ignores it.  Other "leaders" try to overhaul it.  Actually, the
formation of the party itself was an overhaul of an existing restlessness of
the workers.  The energy and conditions to create a labor party existed, that
is how Tony Mazzowki (spelling, I know) formed his pressure group.  In an
effort to thwart this potentially threatening movement the labor "leaders"
would like to keep all the workers occupied in a non-threatening "Labor
Party".  It is simply my position that we "steal" this party from the bosses
and hand it to the workers.  If the power structure of the party flowed
bottom up, then we would see the US's first true worker's party.  If the
labor officialdom are allowed to have their way we will see another waste of
time.  We can not sit on our hands and scream "I told you so!".  We must
fight to put the power of this party in the hands of the workers.  

> Also, to the extent that
>they function politically, they remain firmly attached to the
>capitalist system. None of them has a perspective that leads in
>the direction of breaking away from capitalist politics.

   Exactly.  That is why we, as socialists, must lead the fight for a real
Labor Party.  We must take this diversion and form a true Labor Party.


>   Mike says that, "it is not enough to know the problem, but
>you have to solve it." Unfortunately, Mike doesn't say what
>the problem is that has to be solved.

 The problem is, and I feel Jim would agree, that what was formed in
Cleveland was not a labor party.  It was a shell of a labor party.  Worse
then that is was a shell used as a sheild by the labor aristocracy.  That is
the problem.  The solution is to put something in that shell.  With a true
workers party we will be able to turn that sheild into a weapon.


>   The only time that a labor party can be successfully launched
>in the U.S. is when there is a rising political movement that
>expresses the aspirations of working people engaged in struggle.
>This then would create the foundation for a genuine break with
>capitalist politics by a significant portion of the working class.
>Such a labor party will most likely rise from within the organized
>labor movement, but when it does, it will have to be propelled by
>the ranks of labor, not the pro-capitalist bureacracy.

    Point well taken.  However, this statement is, in essence, saying to
fellow workers "I would like to help you with your little project, but it's a
waste of time."  I argue that it is not a waste of time.  Perhaps a true
labor party cannot be formed at this moment (I would argue that we can now
lay it's basis, if not form it).  Nonetheless, we must not abandon our fellow
workers in a period of struggle.  Right now thousands of workers are trying
to take controll of a new labor party.  If anyone here doubts this I urge
them to attend a local meeting, it is there that you can see the frustration
of the workers.  Depending on our actions the workers will see one of two
things.  On the one hand they may see a group of people who critique,
critique, critique.  "Nothing", they will say, "is good enough for them (for
socialists)."  The workers will see a bunch of academics sitting on their
hands while they (the workers) struggle with the mislead labor party.  When
it is all over, and the labor party had been a miscairrage (which it will be
if we do not get involved), they will see a bunch of people saying this "I
told you so."  Regardless of your correct analysis of this labor party, they
will only see pious socialists who never raised a finger.  If, on the other
hand, we get involved with this mess, the view will be much different.
 Socialists will be seen as the ones who were urging the party to strive
towards a fighting program.  Not only did the socialists have a correct
analysis, they also got their hands dirty.  "Perhaps there is something to
that idea, socialism".  The latter cannot happen unless we stand by the side
of the working class.  

. What I hope will "go down the gutter"
>is Mike's illusion that this new party represents the working
>class.

   As I hopefully made clear above, I do not beleive that the LP represents
the working class.  It is a diversion.  I think that mine and Jim's version
of what the LP is are not so different.  It is what I propose to DO that Jim
and I dissagree on.  I propose that we take this shell and fill it.  It may
not represent the working class' best interests, but it IS the working class.
Ours is the job to stand side by side with our comrades and push them in the
correct direction.


    As for what the leadership of the LP thinks of my veiws; the leadership
can go to hell.


     ---Mike Dean


     --- from list marxism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---