From: MD575151-AT-aol.com
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 1996 15:52:20 -0400
Subject: Re: labor party


To list,

   Before I respond to Jim Miller's post, "labor party", I would like to
clarify my position.  This debate, my side of it anyway, does not concern the
validity or potential of the Labor Party.  Jim brings up many good points
that I do not entirely disagree with.  I argue, however, that there is
something to be gained by working within the Labor Party.  A socialist must
always go where the workers are, you can never wait for the workers to come
to you.  Within the ranks of the Labor Party one can find many
activist/workers.  By working within the Labor Party socialists can
distribute information and educate the members on how the workers will have
to fight capitalism. The LP is a mechinism through which we can recruit
members not to a party, but to an idea.  As for the issue of making the LP
work, that is a side issue.  Regardless of weather or not it has potential,
it will serve as a way of showing the ugly face of bureaucracy to all
workers.  It is a lesson, that is it.

Now, in response to a few of Jim Miller's comments;

>   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.

     Perhaps we can help give it substance.  If anyone here thinks that there
is no push within the LP to give it substance, then they should visit a
meeting of a local chapter.

>   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.

   All I can say to this is the fallowing;  What would really piss off the
bureaucrats is if you used the diversion (the LP) as a means to spread
socialist ideas and prove the inneffectiveness of the bureaucracy.  Use the
LP as a platform to say "See, this is what the bureaucrats will give us.  We
want this, a fighting party.  They cannot provide that.  Lets throw off the
bureaucracy and build our own party."

>   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.

   As I said earlier, I got my information from the July 8th issue of "The
Nation".  The point that I was trying to make is that the workers effected by
the LP are more then the mere 1.5 thousand delegates at the convention.

>   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.

  I agree.  We have a big job in front of us.

>   There is no doubt that many of these demands [the demands made in the LP
constitution] 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.

   The labor officialdom is not creating this labor party for no reason.  (I
would argue that the bureaucracy is less behind it then Jim argues.  Much of
the formation of the LP is the result of workers' efforts.)  If the
bureaucracy is sponsering such an event, then there must be a cause.  The
reason is that the demands that the LP constitution makes are what the
workers right now want.  It is our duty, as socialists, to help push these
ideas and demands to their limit.  We must go into the ranks of the LP and
say; "Don't let them compromise.  Don't be satisfied."  Of course, Jim, the
bureaucrats are not sincere about wanting the masses of humans to have the LP
constitutional rights.  However, the masses are sincere about wanting these
rights.  We all want these rights.  It is, therefore , up to us to fight for
these rights.

>   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. 

  But by leaving the LP up to the bureaucracy we are dooming it to the above
fate.  So, let's not leave it up to the bureaucracy.  Lets make these
constitutional rights "hindersome to capitalist operation."

>   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.

   This is a great point.  I agree 100%.  How were workers able to get the 8
hour day?  How was child labor abolished in the US?  How did Blacks get the
right to citizenship and to vote?  How did women get these same rights some
60 years later?  
   My point is that it is the people who have to enforce these "rights".
   People have won signicant gains that they should always have had.  They
did not get these by sitting on their hans.  Socialists always played a role
in the struggle for these rights.  We all know that "it [the first
ammendmant] is not enforced, and won't be enforced as long as the cpaitalists
have state power".  The reason we fight for these things is so we can get
what is attainable at the moment, and also to prepare the people for a larger
fight, the fight against capital.  We make a point to stand next to others in
this fight even though we know that much of what we fight for cannot be
attained under capitalism.  Through the coarse of this fight we tell others
what the real issue is.  The same is true with the LP.  Though many of these
rights may be inattainable through THIS labor party, we fight for the rights
nonetheless.  The whole time we fight we tell others why we are not winning.
We educate others on the larger issue.  

>   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.

    I agree that it is unlikely, though Jim would say impossable, that the LP
will turn into anything tangible.  The LP is intangable because it has no
electoral program, and it is not democratically controlled from the bottom
up.  That is what the fight is all about.  We must secure these two things.
 At the very least we must show others that a real labor party (weather this
one or in the future) must have these programs.  If a labor party does not
have these two things, then it will never be a real labor party.  This labor
party, most likely, will never have these two things.   It is for this reason
the the LP will, most likely, fail.  I urge you all to get involved with the
LP because it is necessary to have socialists explaining what a labor party
needs to be effective, and to explain why it is going down hill.  We must, at
least, make this a learning experiance.  That is the reason for involvement
in the LP.

>   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.

   Please re-read anything I ever wrote concerning the LP.


        From,
             ---Mike Dean





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