Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 12:23:08 -0700 (PDT)
From: "James F. Miller" <jamiller-AT-igc.apc.org>
Subject: labor party


WHAT IS THE "LABOR PARTY"?

   Mike Dean wrote:

>      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

   I disagree that the Labor Party "consists of thousands of proletarians."
How does Mike determine what the party consists of? If membership is
meant, how is membership determined?
   Are there thousands of proletarians willing to fight for a better
world? What does this mean? How do these workers show their readiness?
How do these workers indicate what they mean by a "better world"?

   Then Mike says,

>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

   The LP constitution may seem pretty good. It has a lot of radical-
sounding demands in it. It also assumes that workers in the US can be
emancipated by tacking on an amendment to the US Constitution. It does
not mention workers in other countries. It is a pro-capitalist
document. Let's at least be clear on that.
   The labor officials who wrote, approved or recommended the
constitution are skilled at this sort of radical rhetoric. They say
one thing and do another. They know how to say one thing to one crowd,
and another thing to another crowd. They are professionsals. They know
how to butter their bread.

   Mike says:

>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

   
   Here's the question that needs a thorough discussion: the
"restlessness of the workers." If you say they are restless,
many (most) observers would agree. Pat Buchanan oriented much of
his working-class demagogy to this restlessness.
   But to launch a labor party, you need more than restlessness,
you need a radicalization of workers. In the 1930s, millions of
workers joined unions, many massive strike battles were fought,
hundreds of thousands of workers joined the Communist Party.
These were the signs of a labor radicalization, and they were
highly visible events. Everyone could see that something was
going on.
   Today, in contrast, there is no mass labor radicalization
going on. If there were, we would all know about it, because
it would be obvious to everyone.
   Some might argue that the "restlessness" we see today is
the early stage of a new mass radicalization of workers. That's
possible. But we have no way of knowing how soon it will begin
to crystallize into a real radicalization.
   In the 1930s, the SWP advocated the formation of a labor
party, and its union fractions fought for that perspective.
But this failed because the Stalinists and labor bureaucrats,
who supported Roosevelt, were too strong. You can read about
this in _Labor's Giant Step_, by Art Preis (Pathfinder Press).
   Today, the SWP does not support the immediate formation of
a labor party. The conditions are not yet ripe for it. But the
SWP still advocates the formation of a labor party, given the
right conditions.

   Further, Mike says (responding to my post):

>    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

   If I had fellow workers who were interested in a labor party,
it would be a whole different story. I'm sure there are some workers
who are interested in the idea of a labor party. A few of them have
heard about the Cleveland convention. But the overwhelming majority
of union members are deeply skeptical of the rhetoric and maneuvers
of the labor functionaries. This is, of course, rational and based
on experience. They won't buy the Cleveland "labor party." But what's
even more important: they won't fight to build a labor party in the
present political situation. 

      Today, when there is no prospect for the successful launching
of a labor party, we witness the pretense of the formation of
a labor party by a few labor officials. Why are they doing this?
They are doing it to suggest the possibility that the unions
will turn their backs on the Democratic Party, unless that party
comes across with some concessions for labor.
   The labor officialdom is increasingly embarassed by its
pro-Democratic Party policy. The Democrats are no longer popular
among workers. (Nor are the Republicans.) Once they have gone
through the charade of creating a "labor party," the officials
are then in a position to say to any workers who still pay
attention to them, "Look, we've got a labor party now. But
we'll only use it if we have to. It's up to the Democrats
now. They've got to come across on minimum wage, social security,
permanent replacement legislation, etc. If not, we'll use the
labor party. They can see we're serious now. We've gone ahead
and formed the party."
   But the Democrats are not going to listen to this. They know
the "labor party" is a meaningless gesture. The Democrats (and
Republicans) will tack to the left if they see a strong labor
movement. But they don't. The labor movement is weak. The level
of unionization is still at a low ebb. The level of strikes is
also very low. The Democrats won't be frightened by the action
of Wages & Co. in Cleveland. They can see it for what it is.


   Mike says:

>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

   It's good that Mike puts the word "steal" in quotes. I think
that indicates that he knows he can't "take" the party from them
by brute force. So what is Mike going to do? Burglarize the
headquarters of the OCAW? And what if he does that? Will he then
have the labor party in his back pocket?
   To say you are going to "steal" the labor party from the OCAW
leaders is just a nonsensical phrase. If you can "steal" the party
>from them, why can't you "steal" the OCAW, or the entire AFL-CIO
>from them? But if you are smart enough to do that, why not go all
the way and "steal" the US government from the capitalists?

   Mike argues:

> 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

   Mike says that he will "steal" this party, which is just a "shell"
and then hand it over to the workers. Do the workers need a "shell"?
I say no. What the workers need is real political power. When they
radicalize, they will fight for it. In the meantime, they don't
need any "shells" created by their pro-capitalist misleaders, even
if you could steal it for them.

Jim Miller
Seattle
jamiller-AT-igc.apc.org


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