Date: Thu, 4 Jul 1996 20:37:23 -0700 (PDT)
From: "James F. Miller" <jamiller-AT-igc.apc.org>
Subject: labor party


RESPONSES TO ARGUMENTS ON LABOR PARTY

   I only have time to answer a few of the posts on the
question of the "labor party" that was formed by the
OCAW, UE and other union leaders together with the Labor
Party Advocates a month ago in Cleveland.
   First, I should make it clear that I am convinced that
no labor party exists in the US. The OCAW officals went
through the motions of forming a party, but no party was
formed. What resulted was the appearance of a party with
no substance.
   Secondly, I would like to stress that the union
bureaucracy in the US has no intention of forming a
labor party, and has no motivation to do so. Further,
there is no pressure from the ranks of labor that would
force them to form a labor party.
   Thirdly, it should be understood by fighting workers
and labor activists that the bureaucrats play an active
role in keeping the workers enslaved by capital. The
labor officialdom is hostile to any tendency on the
part of the workers to establish their political
independence from the capitalist ruling class. The
bureaucracy will not form a labor party until they
see it as a necessity to preserve their own middle-
class privileges within bourgeois society. And that
can't happen until the workers radicalize politically.

   Mike Dean wrote:

>    There were about 1.5 thousand delegates at the convention.  All these
>delegates represented more workers.  These delegates represented around 1 or
>2 million workers.  While not all these workers, not even most, are members
>of the LP, they are all fighting for a better position in society.  Fighting
>for a better world means fighting for a society in which they have more
>power.

   On the question of how many workers were represented
there, Adam Rose pointed out:

>They represented the people that voted for them as delegates, and the
>people that would have voted for them if they'd been at the meeting.
>Say, an average of 25 people each. In addition, there will be thousands
>who would have liked to be represented by a delegate but weren't. So
>the convention represented roughly 25 * 1500 * 2 = 75,000 people.

   I think Adam's estimate is over-optimistic. But at least
he has a rough idea of how these questions can be resolved
in a practical, immediate sense. He knows how the labor
movement functions. But there still remains the deeper
question of the class significance of "representation."
   The delegates at the convention fall into three basic
categories: 1) hand-picked spokespersons of the OCAW,
UE, ILWU, and other union leaderships; 2) delegates from
some union locals; and 3) representatives of LPA chapters,
many of whom are union members. Most of the delegates from
LPA and local unions are radical labor activists. They
don't necessarily represent other workers. Some of them,
no doubt, speak for a small number of people in their
locals. The delegates chosen by the top leaders are
under the thumb of their mentors, and don't represent
any workers at all. They represent the capitalists, in
spite of the fact that they pretend to represent the
workers. It was this category of delegates, the labor
bureaucracy, that dominated the convention.
   In the US today there are thousands of progressive,
or socialist, or radical union activists (and semi-
activists). Most of them are members, or former
members, or sympathizers of one or more of the following
(active or defunct) groups (partial list): CPUSA, SWP,
RCP, CPML, PL, SL, SA, S, COC, CWP, CLP, ISO, DSA, WWP,
LM, etc. (Feel free to add to the list.) If you were to
gather all these people together in one room, you could
have a very big meeting. But would that change anything
about the class struggle? Would that prove that large
numbers of workers are now being represented?
   But even if you could gather ten thousand of these
people together in one room, what force would they
represent in relation to the entrenched and reactionary
labor bureaucracy? Would their gathering be a threat
to the position of the bureaucrats, given the existing
conditions of labor politics in the US today?
   My argument is that the only force that can begin
the process of unseating the present bureaucracy is
the mass of the workers, engaged in a new wave of
struggle against the capitalists. This is just not
happening now. 
   Mike says that the workers are "fighting for a better
position in society." It's true that they would like to
have a better position, but it's not true that they are
presently fighting for it. In 1996 the level of labor
militancy is at a low ebb. This is shown by the strike
statistics.

   Mike thinks that the LP Constitution adopted in
Cleveland is an anticapitalist statement. Here's what
he said about it:

>    Whereas I agree it definatly does not call for the downfall of
>capitalism, I do think it is fairly militant in respect of the lackluster
>condition of the class struggle.  It is very hindersome to capitalist
>operation.  To say it is a capitalist document is a little misleading.  It
>does not call for an end to capitalism, as I have said, but it does challenge
>capitalism.  For instance, it calls for a guarenteed full employment economy
>(which I beleive is impossable under capitalism, isn't it called
>keynesianism?), an end to bigotry (the LP recognises that the bosses try to
>devide the workers through the use of racism, sexism, and xenophobia.),  Less
>work more money, an end to corperate abuse of trade (very hindersome), to
>revitalise the public sector ("A government that works for us would provide
>critical goods and services that can not, and should not, be run for
>profit."),  and to reclaim control or workplace design and tecknology.  If
>this is a document published in the interests of capital, then capital has
>shot itself in the foot.

   There is no doubt that many of these demands would benefit
working people and the oppressed if they were ever implemented.
The same could be said of many of the planks in the Democratic
Party platform. As long as the bureaucracy is going to the
trouble of producing a consitution for a fake labor party,
they are going to include demands that are in the interests
of the workers. How could it be otherwise? They are smart
people. Progressive rhetoric is a staple of the politics
of the labor bureaucracy. The only problem here is that Mike
thinks they are sincere.
   In saying that the constitution is "hindersome to capitalist
operation," Mike confuses pieces of paper with active social
forces. What he means to say is that, if the constitution were
somehow put into effect, it would challenge capitalism. But
the bureaucracy has shown for 150 years that they are capable
of making demands, claims, promises, etc., which they have
no intention of acting on. 
   The same argument could be made in relation to the US
Constitution. If it were enforced, the working class would
be in a stronger position to challenge capitalist rule,
and this is particularly true with regard to the Bill of
Rights, especially the First Amendment. But it is not
enforced, and won't be enforced as long as the capitalists
have state power.
   Are the labor bureaucrats more progressive politically
than the bourgeoisie? Are they more responsive to the needs
of working people? If anything, they are worse than the
bourgeoisie, because they do their dirty work from within
the organizations of the working class. They are the
fifth column of the ruling class. If Mike disagrees with
me on this, then that is something we need to discuss
further.

   Mike says:

>                 I will, however, organize those willing to fight.  I
>will also encourage others to do so.  I feel that there are enough workers
>willing to fight to make a real party.  When the party becomes something
>tangible (IF it does) then many of those who you say are not interested will
>become interested.

   Mike says, "when the party becomes something tangible..."
implying that he recognizes there is something intangible
about it right now. That's my point. It's intangible
because it's a mirage, a trick, a facade. And he needs
to think about this a bit more, and explain why the party
is now intangible, and why this is the case.

   Mike goes on:

>   I think that my analogy of "stealing" the party was a little to vague.
> Perhaps it wasn't.  I don't know.  We would not have to really steal the
>party from the bureaucrats, because it is OUR party.  Just as we do not have
>to steal the means of production from the bourgeoisie, for it is OURS.  We
>built it.

   The "Labor Party" currently belongs to the OCAW bureaucrats,
because they are the ones who control it. They can dissolve it
at any time, and no one can stop them.  Likewise, the means of
production belong to their owners, the capitalists. If that were
not the case, then socialist revolution would not be necessary.

   Then Jon Flanders weighed in on the side of those who
recognize the "Labor Party" as a vehicle for anticapitalist
labor political action. He quoted Jack Barnes (from _The
Changing Face of US Politics_) as saying:

> We have the right and the obligation to demand of the current, elected
>leadership of our unions that they stop supporting the Democrats right now.
>The elected leadership of the unions, as they are now, should break from the
>capitalist parties and help launch a labor party.

   What Jack was saying there (in the early 1980s) corresponded
to an initiative of the SWP to deepen the discussion on the
formation of a labor party in the ranks of labor. As it turned
out, that didn't go anywhere at the time.
   In any case, demanding that the elected leadership of the
unions break from the capitalist parties and form a labor
party is still a good demand. In my view, the labor leaders
have yet to break from the capitalist parties, and they have
yet to form a labor party.
   As for actively calling upon the labor misleaders to form
a labor party at this time, the SWP no longer believes that
this would be useful. Whether or not it was useful in the
1980s I really don't know. And as for the future, there will
most likely come a time when it will be highly useful and
appropriate, but that's not a certainty. 
   Does Jon think that the bureaucrats have broken from the
parties of the bourgeoisie? Of course not. He knows what their
politics are. Then why think that this "Labor Party" is anything
other than a maneuver to pressure the Democrats?

   Then Jon says:

> Isn't actually building the labor party into an effective force something the
>labor bureaucrats fear? Ok, socialists will never hijack the party from the
>officialdom, but socialists can and have, in other situations, hijacked the
>membership, the people who are actually doing the work. I suspect there are
>more Mike Deans out there.

   Jon, when was the last time you hijacked the membership
of your union? Keep in mind that we are talking about 1996
here, not some events that occurred in some other time and
place. Try to focus on what is happening now, not what might
happen if suddenly everything were different.

   Finally, Adam Rose made this assertion:

>Of course it is a party which consists of workers.
>But it is controlled by labor bureaucrats.

   Adam says, "of course." But the problem of what the
"party" consists of cannot be resolved with an "of
course." I have pointed to the "Labor Party" as a
fraud. It is not a party at all. I believe it is
incumbent on those who dispute this to explain why
they think it is otherwise.
   If the OCAW (or other) bureaucrats proclaim that,
"we now have paradise on earth," would Adam simply
state, "of course: we now have paradise on earth"?
   No, he wouldn't. He knows you can't trust those
people. So why believe them if they claim that they
have formed a party? Does their elaborate rigamarole
convince you? If it does, then follow my advice:
try to keep a firm hand on your wallet.
   The socialist and progressive labor activists who
are currently active in the fake "Labor Party" are
playing along with the deceptive game of the class-
collaborationist OCAW and UE officialdom. Participation
in this fraudulent, cynical maneuver will ultimately
demoralize them if they pursue it further.
   The "leftists" in the "Labor Party" claim that they
will capture it. Such impotent posturing will alienate
them from any serious-minded workers, if they haven't
already alienated themselves (which many have).
   The SWP, which I support, is actively involved in
strike support work (McDonnell-Douglas and others),
Cuba solidarity work, anti-police brutality work,
etc., in selling revolutionary books and newspapers
to the workers, and in other activities in the unions
and workplaces. The SWP is not in the "Labor Party,"
and won't join unless the conditions of the class
struggle in the US are dramatically altered.






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


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