USA: Why Do We Need a Mass Labour Party

[Eat the Rich]

There are many workers who voted for the Democrats because they hoped they would bring about reforms such as universal health care, job creation, stronger unions and an end to the wars in the Middle East. Many are already disappointed as the Democrats basically continue Bush’s policies, with a few cosmetic changes. Many workers would like there to be an alternative to the political parties of big business. The Workers International League (WIL) (http://socialistappeal.org/) would like to address a few questions that often come up in discussions regarding our call for the unions to break with the Democrats and build a mass labor party.
Is the Democratic Party a workers’ party?

http://www.marxist.com/images/thumbs/260x232-images-stories-usa-democ1.jpg (http://www.marxist.com/images/stories/usa/democ1.jpg)The Democratic Party was not created by the working class, nor is it under the democratic control of the working class. The Democratic Party has a long history that goes back to the days of slavery, when it represented the southern slave owners. Since the aftermath of the Civil War, the Democrats have been one of the two main parties of American big business. Whatever differences they might claim to have with the Republicans, their fundamental policy is based on maintaining capitalism and imperialism, which means the exploitation of American workers and the super-exploitation of workers in the “under-developed world.” Even the labor leaders do not speak of the Democrats as a workers’ party, but call them “friends of labor.” However, with friends like these, who needs enemies!
How does the capitalist class control the Republicans and Democrats?

Due to the populist movements of the late 1800s and early 1900s, the Capitalist class set up a system of state-controlled primary elections. This was supposedly done to take control of nominating party candidates away from party bosses and put it in the hands of the people. In primary elections, candidates must first win the nomination of the party and then proceed to the general election. In practice, it takes lots of money and media coverage to win the primary campaign and then even more money to win the general election. This is perfect for the capitalist class. They have the money and they own the newspapers, magazines, book publishers, and radio and television stations. Even many billboards on highways are owned by the same companies that own the television networks and cable channels. This is one example of how they control the candidates of both major parties long before they are even elected.
Why not run candidates in the Democratic Party’s primary elections? Couldn’t labor “take over” the Democratic Party?

Theoretically, the labor movement could run candidates in a party primary and try to secure the nomination, and then run in the general election. However, in order to accomplish this task, it would require the labor movement to come together in a political organization to determine policy and program, candidates and strategy. In other words, the labor movement would have to build a “party within a party.”


Such a strategy would be bad for a number of reasons. The labor movement would have to spend its precious resources in the primary election campaign and would then have less money left over for the general election. This is not a problem for the capitalists who control the media and have tons of money available for politics. If a genuine labor candidate fighting on a socialist or even moderately radical program won the Democratic primary, the party would quickly either dis-own the candidate or otherwise try to sabotage the campaign. An example of this can be seen with former congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, who was basically driven out of the Democratic Party because she was perceived as being “too far to the left.” Also, more people turn out for the general elections than vote in the primaries. This is due to the fact that many people do not identify with the big business political parties. It would not be a step forward in developing class consciousness to encourage workers to join or support the Democrats, a non-workers’ party. However, it would be an enormous step forward in class consciousness for the workers to come to the conclusion that we need a party to represent our class: a mass labor party! This is why we consistently call on workers to break with the Democrats and form such a party. However, until a mass party of labor is created, many workers will either remain with the Democrats as a “lesser evil,” or simply abstain from voting.
Why does the WIL call for a Labor Party?

Those of us who depend on our ability to work and on the paycheck we receive from it in order to support our living standards are the working class. The working class is the overwhelming majority of the population of the USA. Our class has interests separate and diametrically opposed to interests of the richest 2%, who own and control big business and the two major parties. The working class has built unions to represent its interests at the workplace and it now needs its own party to represent its political interests at all levels of government.
What would a mass Labor Party look like?

Unions would directly affiliate to this party and would have voting rights based on their membership. The unions should vote according to the democratic will of their membership. Also, a mass labor party would have local branches, which anyone who believed in the cause of labor, whether or not they were a member of a union, could join. These branches should also be able to vote in the Labor Party. A mass labor party should also organize a youth wing, mobilizing young workers, students and unemployed. This youth wing should also be allowed voting rights in the party.
Would a mass labor party lead to a Republican victory?

Some will argue that a mass labor party would “split the Democratic Party vote” and lead to victory for the Republican Party. One consequence of “lesser evil” politics is that eventually, you always get the “greater” evil. Right now, with the Democrats in control of Congress and the Presidency, how much has really changed for the better? If a mass labor party is not built, as anger over the status quo builds up, what will happen? If there is no alternative, the Republican Party will eventually take back power and this party could move even further to the right. Without a labor party, the lesser evil politics that the present labor leadership practices has provided no resistance to the Capitalists as they have pushed politics to the right in the last few decades as a way to deal with their crisis ridden system. At present, there is no political party that answers the lies and propaganda of big business.


The founding of a mass labor party would begin to educate the mass of workers and youth in this country as to how we can fight for the interests of the working class and combat the lies of Capitalism and their political parties. Deep down, many workers and youth sense that the two parties don’t represent them, but they feel that there is no realistic alternative. A labor party would win these people over. A labor party would gain votes from young people and many who now choose not to vote at all, but it would also take votes from the two major political parties, with more probably coming from the Democrats. Eventually, a mass Labor Party could become the largest party as disgust with the two major parties increases. It should be noted that in Canada, their labor party, known as the New Democratic Party (NDP), is still just third in size compared with the big business parties, yet its existence has forced the Canadian Capitalists to give more reforms. That is why, for example, Canadian workers have free universal health care and American workers do not.
Since organized labor is so small today, how could such a party be built today?

http://www.marxist.com/images/thumbs/270x203-images-stories-usa-uawstrikee.jpg (http://www.marxist.com/images/stories/usa/uawstrikee.jpg)Even though less that 14% of the labor force is in unions, that is still more than 12 million workers! These members and their families and the resources of the labor movement would have a huge political impact. We should also include the millions of retired union members. The party would also reach out to the millions of workers who would like to be members of a union, but who fear employer retaliation such as being fired or the workplace being closed. This would include the most oppressed and exploited workers, including the undocumented. A labor party should fight to attain voting and trade union rights for all those who live here. Many people concerned about ending the wars abroad, getting free universal health care and fighting for more funding for education would also look to a labor party. A labor party could win over those concerned about pollution and the environment as it would be the force that would struggle against the business-controlled parties that have allowed so much damage to occur. It can be seen how quickly a large majority could be built up.
The Labour Party government in Britain, under Blair and Brown, invaded and occupied Iraq and Afghanistan. In light of this, why would a Labor Party be an improvement?

When a labor party is established and wins control of government, it basically has two choices. It can mobilize the working class for the socialist transformation of society or it can attempt to change things by merely tinkering with capitalism. When it chooses the later and capitalism is in crisis, the logic of the system leads the “Labour Government” to cut workers’ living standards and do the bidding of big business at home and abroad. In Great Britain, the workers need to re-claim the Labour Party and the trade unions so they can become instruments to transform society. However, there are still important benefits in Britain that workers here do not have, and this is due to past reforms attained through the Labour party. In the US, we need to build a labor party and learn the lessons of Britain. Our labor party needs to lead the working class to transform society by putting an end to capitalism and establishing socialism based on workers’ democracy.
Why does the WIL believe that a labor party should stand for socialism?

Capitalism is in a serious crisis and cannot be fixed or regulated back to health. As a result of the crisis, everyone is affected, but it is the workers, the poor and the middle class who shoulder the biggest burden. Therefore, it is not in the interest of workers to continue to be exploited by this rotten system. Socialism would mean that society could democratically plan the use of natural resources and technology to meet human needs and wants in a way that does not destroy the earth and make it unlivable.


It would be a society of full employment, free universal health care and education, plenty of quality affordable housing, and well-maintained roads, bridges, and other infrastructure. Small businesses and worker co-operatives would be coordinated with worker-controlled state-owned industry to achieve these goals. However, as stated above, a labor party government that tried to manage capitalist crisis rather than transform society would lead to disaster and the public would turn away from such a party. The WIL would argue for these socialist policies within such a party, even if we were a small minority at first. We are confident that through patient explanation and on the basis of workers’ own experience, the majority will eventually draw the conclusion that capitalism must be replaced by socialism.
What happened to the Labor Party established in the 1990s?

In the 1990s, there was the beginning of a labor party in the US, but the vast majority of the unions in this country refused to break with the Democrats and Republicans and join this party. Even a few of the unions who supported the Labor Party also continued their support of some Democrats. The Labor Party could have played an educational role in developing a future mass labor party. It would have needed to organize rallies, mass meetings and run at least some candidates in a few elections. The fact that it did not do this led many people to drop out as they could not see it developing further.


What changes will need to happen in the labor movement, prior to the establishment of a mass labor party?
The economic crisis facing us today will develop into a deepening social and political crisis in the future. This will eventually be reflected in the labor movement. Any labor leaders that take a step toward a labor party, independent of the two big business parties, should be supported. If leaders representing a noticeable section of the labor movement did so, this could open the flood gates and create an unstoppable movement.
What does the WIL do today, to help build a labor party?

The WIL raises the issue of the need for a labor party in every union where we have supporters. We see the struggle to change the union leadership’s policies of supporting the big business political parties as part of a struggle for more democratic unions that will the fight against give-backs to the boss and use more militant tactics to win strike battles. The WIL works with any and all who struggle for these changes in the unions. We also bring the issue of the need for a mass labor party to other campaigns such as the immigrants’ rights and anti-war movements.

[Hit The North]

In the UK, we've had a Labour Party for over a hundred years. It still has yet to act in favour of the working class.

[KC]

So how are Socialist Alternative and the WIL working together on this?

[Eat the Rich]

So how are Socialist Alternative and the WIL working together on this?

You are in the USA and part of SA, bring it up to your branch and to WIL comrades. You won't accomplish anything by bringing it up on revleft all the time. The work needs to be done on the ground not on an internet forum.

[KC]

You are in the USA and part of SA, bring it up to your branch and to WIL comrades. You won't accomplish anything by bringing it up on revleft all the time. The work needs to be done on the ground not on an internet forum.

Well obviously that will be the case if/when I become a member of Socialist Alternative, but given your answer it sounds like the two groups have not worked together at all on this issue. Is that correct? Have you brought it up to your organization?

[willdw79]

There are many workers who voted for the Democrats because they hoped they would bring about reforms such as universal health care, job creation, stronger unions and an end to the wars in the Middle East. Many are already disappointed as the Democrats basically continue Bush’s policies, with a few cosmetic changes. Many workers would like there to be an alternative to the political parties of big business. The Workers International League (WIL) (http://socialistappeal.org/) would like to address a few questions that often come up in discussions regarding our call for the unions to break with the Democrats and build a mass labor party.
Is the Democratic Party a workers’ party?

http://www.marxist.com/images/thumbs/260x232-images-stories-usa-democ1.jpg (http://www.marxist.com/images/stories/usa/democ1.jpg)The Democratic Party was not created by the working class, nor is it under the democratic control of the working class. The Democratic Party has a long history that goes back to the days of slavery, when it represented the southern slave owners. Since the aftermath of the Civil War, the Democrats have been one of the two main parties of American big business. Whatever differences they might claim to have with the Republicans, their fundamental policy is based on maintaining capitalism and imperialism, which means the exploitation of American workers and the super-exploitation of workers in the “under-developed world.” Even the labor leaders do not speak of the Democrats as a workers’ party, but call them “friends of labor.” However, with friends like these, who needs enemies!
How does the capitalist class control the Republicans and Democrats?

Due to the populist movements of the late 1800s and early 1900s, the Capitalist class set up a system of state-controlled primary elections. This was supposedly done to take control of nominating party candidates away from party bosses and put it in the hands of the people. In primary elections, candidates must first win the nomination of the party and then proceed to the general election. In practice, it takes lots of money and media coverage to win the primary campaign and then even more money to win the general election. This is perfect for the capitalist class. They have the money and they own the newspapers, magazines, book publishers, and radio and television stations. Even many billboards on highways are owned by the same companies that own the television networks and cable channels. This is one example of how they control the candidates of both major parties long before they are even elected.
Why not run candidates in the Democratic Party’s primary elections? Couldn’t labor “take over” the Democratic Party?

Theoretically, the labor movement could run candidates in a party primary and try to secure the nomination, and then run in the general election. However, in order to accomplish this task, it would require the labor movement to come together in a political organization to determine policy and program, candidates and strategy. In other words, the labor movement would have to build a “party within a party.”


Such a strategy would be bad for a number of reasons. The labor movement would have to spend its precious resources in the primary election campaign and would then have less money left over for the general election. This is not a problem for the capitalists who control the media and have tons of money available for politics. If a genuine labor candidate fighting on a socialist or even moderately radical program won the Democratic primary, the party would quickly either dis-own the candidate or otherwise try to sabotage the campaign. An example of this can be seen with former congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, who was basically driven out of the Democratic Party because she was perceived as being “too far to the left.” Also, more people turn out for the general elections than vote in the primaries. This is due to the fact that many people do not identify with the big business political parties. It would not be a step forward in developing class consciousness to encourage workers to join or support the Democrats, a non-workers’ party. However, it would be an enormous step forward in class consciousness for the workers to come to the conclusion that we need a party to represent our class: a mass labor party! This is why we consistently call on workers to break with the Democrats and form such a party. However, until a mass party of labor is created, many workers will either remain with the Democrats as a “lesser evil,” or simply abstain from voting.
Why does the WIL call for a Labor Party?

Those of us who depend on our ability to work and on the paycheck we receive from it in order to support our living standards are the working class. The working class is the overwhelming majority of the population of the USA. Our class has interests separate and diametrically opposed to interests of the richest 2%, who own and control big business and the two major parties. The working class has built unions to represent its interests at the workplace and it now needs its own party to represent its political interests at all levels of government.
What would a mass Labor Party look like?

Unions would directly affiliate to this party and would have voting rights based on their membership. The unions should vote according to the democratic will of their membership. Also, a mass labor party would have local branches, which anyone who believed in the cause of labor, whether or not they were a member of a union, could join. These branches should also be able to vote in the Labor Party. A mass labor party should also organize a youth wing, mobilizing young workers, students and unemployed. This youth wing should also be allowed voting rights in the party.
Would a mass labor party lead to a Republican victory?

Some will argue that a mass labor party would “split the Democratic Party vote” and lead to victory for the Republican Party. One consequence of “lesser evil” politics is that eventually, you always get the “greater” evil. Right now, with the Democrats in control of Congress and the Presidency, how much has really changed for the better? If a mass labor party is not built, as anger over the status quo builds up, what will happen? If there is no alternative, the Republican Party will eventually take back power and this party could move even further to the right. Without a labor party, the lesser evil politics that the present labor leadership practices has provided no resistance to the Capitalists as they have pushed politics to the right in the last few decades as a way to deal with their crisis ridden system. At present, there is no political party that answers the lies and propaganda of big business.


The founding of a mass labor party would begin to educate the mass of workers and youth in this country as to how we can fight for the interests of the working class and combat the lies of Capitalism and their political parties. Deep down, many workers and youth sense that the two parties don’t represent them, but they feel that there is no realistic alternative. A labor party would win these people over. A labor party would gain votes from young people and many who now choose not to vote at all, but it would also take votes from the two major political parties, with more probably coming from the Democrats. Eventually, a mass Labor Party could become the largest party as disgust with the two major parties increases. It should be noted that in Canada, their labor party, known as the New Democratic Party (NDP), is still just third in size compared with the big business parties, yet its existence has forced the Canadian Capitalists to give more reforms. That is why, for example, Canadian workers have free universal health care and American workers do not.
Since organized labor is so small today, how could such a party be built today?

http://www.marxist.com/images/thumbs/270x203-images-stories-usa-uawstrikee.jpg (http://www.marxist.com/images/stories/usa/uawstrikee.jpg)Even though less that 14% of the labor force is in unions, that is still more than 12 million workers! These members and their families and the resources of the labor movement would have a huge political impact. We should also include the millions of retired union members. The party would also reach out to the millions of workers who would like to be members of a union, but who fear employer retaliation such as being fired or the workplace being closed. This would include the most oppressed and exploited workers, including the undocumented. A labor party should fight to attain voting and trade union rights for all those who live here. Many people concerned about ending the wars abroad, getting free universal health care and fighting for more funding for education would also look to a labor party. A labor party could win over those concerned about pollution and the environment as it would be the force that would struggle against the business-controlled parties that have allowed so much damage to occur. It can be seen how quickly a large majority could be built up.
The Labour Party government in Britain, under Blair and Brown, invaded and occupied Iraq and Afghanistan. In light of this, why would a Labor Party be an improvement?

When a labor party is established and wins control of government, it basically has two choices. It can mobilize the working class for the socialist transformation of society or it can attempt to change things by merely tinkering with capitalism. When it chooses the later and capitalism is in crisis, the logic of the system leads the “Labour Government” to cut workers’ living standards and do the bidding of big business at home and abroad. In Great Britain, the workers need to re-claim the Labour Party and the trade unions so they can become instruments to transform society. However, there are still important benefits in Britain that workers here do not have, and this is due to past reforms attained through the Labour party. In the US, we need to build a labor party and learn the lessons of Britain. Our labor party needs to lead the working class to transform society by putting an end to capitalism and establishing socialism based on workers’ democracy.
Why does the WIL believe that a labor party should stand for socialism?

Capitalism is in a serious crisis and cannot be fixed or regulated back to health. As a result of the crisis, everyone is affected, but it is the workers, the poor and the middle class who shoulder the biggest burden. Therefore, it is not in the interest of workers to continue to be exploited by this rotten system. Socialism would mean that society could democratically plan the use of natural resources and technology to meet human needs and wants in a way that does not destroy the earth and make it unlivable.


It would be a society of full employment, free universal health care and education, plenty of quality affordable housing, and well-maintained roads, bridges, and other infrastructure. Small businesses and worker co-operatives would be coordinated with worker-controlled state-owned industry to achieve these goals. However, as stated above, a labor party government that tried to manage capitalist crisis rather than transform society would lead to disaster and the public would turn away from such a party. The WIL would argue for these socialist policies within such a party, even if we were a small minority at first. We are confident that through patient explanation and on the basis of workers’ own experience, the majority will eventually draw the conclusion that capitalism must be replaced by socialism.
What happened to the Labor Party established in the 1990s?

In the 1990s, there was the beginning of a labor party in the US, but the vast majority of the unions in this country refused to break with the Democrats and Republicans and join this party. Even a few of the unions who supported the Labor Party also continued their support of some Democrats. The Labor Party could have played an educational role in developing a future mass labor party. It would have needed to organize rallies, mass meetings and run at least some candidates in a few elections. The fact that it did not do this led many people to drop out as they could not see it developing further.


What changes will need to happen in the labor movement, prior to the establishment of a mass labor party?
The economic crisis facing us today will develop into a deepening social and political crisis in the future. This will eventually be reflected in the labor movement. Any labor leaders that take a step toward a labor party, independent of the two big business parties, should be supported. If leaders representing a noticeable section of the labor movement did so, this could open the flood gates and create an unstoppable movement.
What does the WIL do today, to help build a labor party?

The WIL raises the issue of the need for a labor party in every union where we have supporters. We see the struggle to change the union leadership’s policies of supporting the big business political parties as part of a struggle for more democratic unions that will the fight against give-backs to the boss and use more militant tactics to win strike battles. The WIL works with any and all who struggle for these changes in the unions. We also bring the issue of the need for a mass labor party to other campaigns such as the immigrants’ rights and anti-war movements.
Who thinks that the Democratic Party is a "working class" party. I feel you on the need for a mass communist party of us, the working class. But in the U.S., you have to first find people who aren't jaded, disillusioned, or don't think that they are "middle class" and somehow a layer of stratification separates them from the ghetto dwelling demons that they spend so much time, money, and effort running from.

[Yehuda Stern]

This again. A little Trotsky disproves this nonsense in no time:


3. A long period of confusion in the Comintern led many people to forget a very simple but absolutely irrevocable principle that a Marxist, a proletarian revolutionist, cannot present himself before the working class with two banners. He cannot say at a workers meeting: I have tickets for a first class party and other tickets cheaper for the stupid ones. If I am a Communist I must fight for the Communist Party.
4. One can affirm that under the American conditions a “Labor Party” in the British sense would be a progressive step and by recognizing this and stating so, we ourselves, even though indirectly, help to establish such a party. But that is precisely the reason I will never assume the responsibility to affirm abstractly and dogmatically that the creation of a “Labor Party” would be a “progressive step” even in the United States because I do not know under what circumstances, under what guidance, and for what purposes that party would be created. It seems to me more probable that especially in America, which does not possess any important tradition of independent political action by the working class (as Chartism in England, for example) and where the trade union bureaucracy is more reactionary and corrupt than it was in the height of the British Empire. The creation of a “Labor Party” in America could be provoked only by a mighty revolutionary pressure of the working masses and by the growing threat of Communism. It is absolutely clear that under these conditions the Labor Party would signify not a progressive step but a hindrance to the progressive evolution of the working class.

[Eat the Rich]

Well obviously that will be the case if/when I become a member of Socialist Alternative, but given your answer it sounds like the two groups have not worked together at all on this issue. Is that correct? Have you brought it up to your organization?

I don't livein the U.S, so I usualy bring up stuff about Canada, where I am politicaly active.. When I talked to the US comrades about the CPUSA , the SA and the rest of the sects during the Summer School, I got the impression that they work together, but with SA (given that both groups are small), they don't have a lot of branches in the same areas.

Anyways, I had the impression that you were a member of SA. Even if you are not, you can still ask them and talk to them about forging close ties with WIL.

[Yehuda Stern]

I see that you haven't responded to me yet. Trotsky quotes are hard to argue against, unfortunately: they're simple words, black on white (or gray in our case).

Oh, and another IMT style gem:


When I talked to the US comrades about the CPUSA , the SA and the rest of the sects during the Summer School, I got the impression that they work together

Working together? Could that mean that... they aren't sects? Could it mean that the IMT is the sect which refuses to work with any other left group?

[Eat the Rich]

Working together? Could that mean that... they aren't sects? Could it mean that the IMT is the sect which refuses to work with any other left group?

Just to clarify. The sects : SPUSA, CPUSA, and SA work with WIL. That's what I meant. Of course we are all sects in the States...

From the same text by Trotsky, you quoted: "On the Labour Party question in America" (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1932/xx/lp.htm), we have this :



I affirmed that American politics will be Europeanized in the sense that the inevitable and imminent development of a party of the working class will totally change the political face of the US. This is a commonplace for a Marxist. The question was not of a “Labor Party” in the specific English sense of that word, but in the general European sense without designating what form such a party would take or what phases it would pass through.
...........
That the Labor Party can become an arena of our successful struggle and that the Labor Party created as a barrier to Communism can, under certain circumstances, strengthen the Communist Party is true, but only under the condition that we consider the Labor Party not as “our” party, but as an arena in which we are acting as an absolutely independent Communist Party.Maybe you need to actualy read the article I posted, before quoting nonsense out of context and with no relation to it.

Also this letter from Frederick Engels to Florence Kelly Wischnewetsky shows his perspective for the development of a labor party in the United States and the way that the Marxists should orient to such a party. He warns revolutionaries in the U.S. of the dangers of transforming Marxist ideas into a lifeless dogma by taking a sectarian attitude towards such a massive movement of the working class "not of their creation." Even in this brief letter, there are numerous lessons for Marxists today.


Engels to Florence Kelley Wischnewetsky in ZurichLondon, December 28, 1886
My preface will of course turn entirely on the immense stride made by the American working man in the last ten months, and naturally also touch H.G. and his land scheme. But it cannot pretend to deal exhaustively with it. Nor do I think the time has come for that. It is far more important that the movement should spread, proceed harmoniously, take root and embrace as much as possible the whole American proletariat, than that it should start and proceed from the beginning on theoretically perfectly correct lines. There is no better road to theoretical clearness of comprehension than "durch Schaden klug tererden" [to learn by one's own mistakes]. And for a whole large class, there is no other road, especially for a nation so eminently practical as the Americans. The great thing is to get the working class to move as a class; that once obtained, they will soon find the right direction, and all who resist, H.G. or Powderly, will be left out in the cold with small sects of their own. Therefore I think also the K[nights] of L[abour] a most important factor in the movement which ought not to be pooh-poohed from without but to be revolutionised from within, and I consider that many of the Germans there have made a grievous mistake when they tried, in face of a mighty and glorious movement not of their creation, to make of their imported and not always understood theory a kind of alleinseligmachendes dogma and to keep aloof from any movement which did not accept that dogma.



Our theory is not a dogma but the exposition of a process of evolution, and that process involves successive phases. To expect that the Americans will start with the full consciousness of the theory worked out in older industrial countries is to expect the impossible. What the Germans ought to do is to act up to their own theory --if they understand it, as we did in 1845 and 1848--to go in for any real general working-class movement, accept its faktische [actual] starting points as such and work it gradually up to the theoretical level by pointing out how every mistake made, every reverse suffered, was a necessary consequence of mistaken theoretical views in the original programme; they ought, in the words of The Communist Manifesto, to represent the movement of the future in the movement of the present.



But above all give the movement time to consolidate, do not make the inevitable confusion of the first start worse confounded by forcing down people's throats things which at present they cannot properly understand, but which they soon will learn. A million or two of workingmen's votes next November for a bona fide workingmen's party is worth infinitely more at present than a hundred thousand votes for a doctrinally perfect platform. The very first attempt--soon to be made if the movement progresses--to consolidate the moving masses on a national basis will bring them all face to face, Georgites, K. of L., Trade Unionists, and all; and if our German friends by that time have learnt enough of the language of the country to go in for a discussion, then will be the time for them to criticise the views of the others and thus, by showing up the inconsistencies of the various standpoints, to bring them gradually to understand their own actual position, the position made for them by the correlation of capital and wage labour. But anything that might delay or prevent that national consolidation of the workingmen's party--no matter what platform--I should consider a great mistake, and therefore I do not think the time has arrived to speak out fully and exhaustively either with regard to H.G. or the K. of L.

[Revy]

I don't think we need a mass labor party, at all.

The IMT emphasizes the amount of people (12 million!) that are unionized. But this is not a significant portion of working people in the US, few of whom are actually part of a union.

Labor unions (except for maybe the IWW) here are particularly bureaucratic, and ideas like socialism would bounce off them faster than you could pitch it to them. A mass labor party where labor unions hold power has not developed simply because labor unions have rejected the option.

A socialist party must not chain itself to the destiny of the labor union bureaucracy. A socialist party must present itself actively as a workers' party, the party of the revolutionary and radical sections of the working class.

The IMT was established through a split in the British Militant Labour, with the early IMT believing that continued work within the Labour Party would amount to anything, especially after the vicious attacks of the Labour Party leadership on Militant. It falsely believes what failed in Britain can work here.

If a Labor Party were created (or the Labor Party currently holding that name were resurrected from its current coma) it would no doubt engage in the same internal witch-hunt against revolutionaries.

[Red Saxon]

The Democrats today are not always allied with workers. For example, in Cincinnati Ohio, the Democratic City Government is going though some legal battles between the police and fire dept. unions because they basically want to cut their paychecks in half in order to have enough money for a railway system.

From my own math, I've managed to get a number of around 25,409,752 people who are in labour unions. 55,000,000 people are registered Republicans, and around 72,000,000 registered Democrats. Assuming we'd pull alot of pro-labour Democrats into the party, it would be pretty sizeable.

[Yehuda Stern]

Maybe you need to actualy read the article I posted, before quoting nonsense out of context and with no relation to it.


I did read it. Did you? The fact is, Trotsky suggested a Labor Party slogan when there was an active struggle of workers that needed a political expression. But he clearly states: if I'm a revolutionary, I fight for the revolutionary party. You didn't answer that because you can't, because your group's opportunism cannot be reconciled with Trotskyism.

[Eat the Rich]

I did read it. Did you? The fact is, Trotsky suggested a Labor Party slogan when there was an active struggle of workers that needed a political expression. But he clearly states: if I'm a revolutionary, I fight for the revolutionary party. You didn't answer that because you can't, because your group's opportunism cannot be reconciled with Trotskyism.

WIL as a revolutionary group struggles to build the revolutionary party while maintaining the slogan of a Labour Party that is especialy needed in this and the future stage of the movement in the States. I don't see any opportunism...

Fuck man with people like you around, no wonder people think that we are a bunch of crazy fucks. You sound like a typical "2 men and a dog" party representative and have no connection to the real objective conditions. And that's not a personal attack, it's a conclusion derived from the style and content of your posts. I won't waste any more of my time as I already refuted your attack.

[Eat the Rich]

Why don't you join Obama, you can have even more people on your side... since you don't seem to care whether or not they fight for the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Did you actualy read the article? It is clearly against the democratic party...
This is clearly a strawman argument. Can you actualy contribute to the discussion? If you actualy have a concrete criticism, I'm all ears.

To answer to your previous question:


Who thinks that the Democratic Party is a "working class" party.

Clearly many workers in the states have such illusions, which you must know about unless you've been living in a box. This article is both targeted to ordinary workers and "revolutionaries".

[Eat the Rich]

I don't think we need a mass labor party, at all.

The IMT emphasizes the amount of people (12 million!) that are unionized. But this is not a significant portion of working people in the US, few of whom are actually part of a union.

Labor unions (except for maybe the IWW) here are particularly bureaucratic, and ideas like socialism would bounce off them faster than you could pitch it to them. A mass labor party where labor unions hold power has not developed simply because labor unions have rejected the option.

Through history we see that workers enter the struggle through their unions. The majority of the unionized workers don't participate in their union at times like these. This gives the chance to a bunch of bureaucrats to control the union. But as we've seen time and time again in history, when the workers actualy enter the unions the bureaucracy goes to the left, or is ousted alltogether. The point is that we Marxists, need to be side by side with the workers once they enter this stage and expose the bureaucrats for what they are and win the people to the banner of revolutionary socialism.

So if a mass Labour Party is created in the States, it would be through the organized workers.


A socialist party must not chain itself to the destiny of the labor union bureaucracy. A socialist party must present itself actively as a workers' party, the party of the revolutionary and radical sections of the working class.


I agree. Participating in a union means fighting with all our forces against the right wing of the union and the bureaucracy. It does not mean chaining ourselves to these elements. While at the same time, wining the rank and file to our banner.


The IMT was established through a split in the British Militant Labour, with the early IMT believing that continued work within the Labour Party would amount to anything, especially after the vicious attacks of the Labour Party leadership on Militant. It falsely believes what failed in Britain can work here.

You are wrong. In Britain, the Militant did not build the Labour Party. But through work in the Labour Party, while maintaining the principles of Marxism and their political independence from the Party bureaucracy, the Militant managed to build the strongest Trotskyist Party in the history of Britain and Europe. It was a combination of objective and subjective conditions that led to the degeneration and collapse of the Militant in the early 90s (particularly the fall of the USSR and the destruction of the left).

The split did not happen over continued work in Labour or not. There were many factors which I will not go into as I don't want to derail this discussion.


If a Labor Party were created (or the Labor Party currently holding that name were resurrected from its current coma) it would no doubt engage in the same internal witch-hunt against revolutionaries.

If a Labour Party would be created, it would radicaly change the situation in the States and give an unprecedented advance in the consciousness of the proletariat in the States. A Labour Party (which again does not mean New Labour, Britain style), would be a fertile place where Marxists could win over a huge section of the working class in the States, by working within it (while maintaining their political and organizational independence).

[Zeus the Moose]

Does the IMT draw a difference between the formation and early politics of groups like the Labour Party in the UK, and groups like the Social-Democratic Party of Germany? I'd argue that there are very important differences in the way these parties came about, and the Labour Party was primarily about the elemental form of the workers' movement, whereas the SPD successfully merged the workers movement and socialist theory/propaganda. Assuming these differences are real, it seems to me that the SPD model is a much superior model to follow (though not without its own dangers, as history shows), if we are indeed intent on looking for "models" to follow (hopefully not slavishly either way.)

While I can understand socialists arguing the need to support independent labour candidates in the US (on the rare occasion that they do exist), but I don't see why a labour party is necessarily a step forward. So I'm interested in seeing a further explanation about this from the IMT.

When talking about Trotsky's writings on the Labor Party question in the US, there are a number of writers who took up the question during the time the Trotskyist movement was in the Socialist Party of America. Some of their writings can be found the MIA archive for their paper (http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/socialistappeal/index.htm) for folks that are interested.

[Outinleftfield]

I rather have good independent socialist candidates that run and that are endorsed but not nominated by a number of groups that consider them the best candidates.

Parties turn into elitist cliques focused only on maintaining their own power once they achieve it even if they have to sell out their original base. It would be better if American voters rejected political parties including third parties and mass movements of people and organizations of different affiliations would start to elect independents.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I don't think we need a mass labor party, at all.

The IMT emphasizes the amount of people (12 million!) that are unionized. But this is not a significant portion of working people in the US, few of whom are actually part of a union.

Labor unions (except for maybe the IWW) here are particularly bureaucratic, and ideas like socialism would bounce off them faster than you could pitch it to them. A mass labor party where labor unions hold power has not developed simply because labor unions have rejected the option.

A socialist party must not chain itself to the destiny of the labor union bureaucracy. A socialist party must present itself actively as a workers' party, the party of the revolutionary and radical sections of the working class.

The IMT was established through a split in the British Militant Labour, with the early IMT believing that continued work within the Labour Party would amount to anything, especially after the vicious attacks of the Labour Party leadership on Militant. It falsely believes what failed in Britain can work here.

If a Labor Party were created (or the Labor Party currently holding that name were resurrected from its current coma) it would no doubt engage in the same internal witch-hunt against revolutionaries.

The only organic link to the American working class that is needed (but is missing from most left organizations) is a very explicit workers-only membership policy!

Other than that, if unions decide to affiliate, they must do so under conditions similar to the 21 conditions for entry into the Comintern. In this case, things like: union officials on average workers' wages, full recallability of union officials, term limits, etc.


Does the IMT draw a difference between the formation and early politics of groups like the Labour Party in the UK, and groups like the Social-Democratic Party of Germany? I'd argue that there are very important differences in the way these parties came about, and the Labour Party was primarily about the elemental form of the workers' movement, whereas the SPD successfully merged the workers movement and socialist theory/propaganda. Assuming these differences are real, it seems to me that the SPD model is a much superior model to follow (though not without its own dangers, as history shows), if we are indeed intent on looking for "models" to follow (hopefully not slavishly either way.)

The SPD succeeded for a time because of its explicit workers-only membership policy. Even though opportunists of dubious class backgrounds eventually seeped in, this allowed them to develop an "alternative culture" for German workers.

The Labour party, meanwhile, was formed by British tred-iunionisty who made backroom deals with the LIBERALS: we'll run candidates here and there, and we'll vote LIBERAL except on cases of worker issues. The Labour party was a "bourgeois workers' party" from the start!

IMTers can't seem to tell between a "bourgeois worker's party" and a proletarian party as defined in the Communist Manifesto! Then again, neither can the majority of today's left. :(



On a related note, if the Peace and Freedom party expands beyond California and adopts a workers-only membership policy, and if the SP-USA adopts a similar policy, I don't see why the two groups shouldn't merge shortly afterwards. :)

[Revy]

On a related note, if the Peace and Freedom party expands beyond California and adopts a workers-only membership policy, and if the SP-USA adopts a similar policy, I don't see why the two groups shouldn't merge shortly afterwards. :)

I support that idea. :)

[Zolken]

On a related note, if the Peace and Freedom party expands beyond California and adopts a workers-only membership policy, and if the SP-USA adopts a similar policy, I don't see why the two groups shouldn't merge shortly afterwards. :) What exactly qualifies a person as being a worker these days? And by this same note what defining characteristics serves as a valid means of separation between workers and all others within society?

[Revy]

What exactly qualifies a person as being a worker these days? And by this same note what defining characteristics serves as a valid means of separation between workers and all others within society?

Their relationship to the means of production.

[Die Neue Zeit]

To be more precise (http://www.revleft.com/vb/simplification-class-relationsi-t73419/index.html): their relationship to the wage labour system, their relationship to the development of society's labour power and capabilities (more or less the production or non-production of surplus value), and then their direct relationship to the means of production themselves. :D

[Eat the Rich]

Replying to Yehuda Stern and his Trotsky quote further:

Regarding Trotsky's position, I believe the quote is from the early 1930's. Whenever we examine Marxist literature, we must always remember to whom it was written and the context that it was written in. Our program is based on the method of Marxism, Trotsky's method. Trotsky was speaking in a particular context. Our present demand for a labor party in the USA is not an abstract position, but it flows from a concrete analysis of the objective situation and a realistic appraisal of the strength of the subjective factor.

What was the context in which Trotsky made that statement? The USSR existed and it was about 15 years [give or take a few] after the momentous Bolshevik Revolution. There existed a Communist International, a reference point for the advanced section of the working class in every country. In the USA, the Communist Party had a daily newspaper [one on each coast], magazines and about 8,000 members in the late 1920's and more than that in the early 1930's, with thousands in its periphery. The USA had about 100,000,000 at that time. Remember, at that time, the Left Opposition considered itself as part of the CPs and the Comintern, even if it was formally outside those organizations. In this context, it is possible that the advanced section of the working class could have moved to the CP and the Left Opposition, but this happened on a smaller scale. As the 1930's went on, it was Trotsky himself that reevaluated perspectives and argued with the SWP to call for and fight for a Labor Party.

What is the context that we are in now and why do we call for a Labor Party? The USA, a country of 300,000,000 has no mass workers party. The entire left in the USA is very small. I would bet Quebec alone has more socialists and communists than the entire US. The CP-USA, today claims 1,000 members [most very old] and is on the verge of liquidation [the CP-USA has tail ended the Democrats for most of the last 75 years]. The DSA [Democratic Socialists of America] claim several thousand members, but many are only active in the Democratic Party, where they do not raise socialist ideas. The SP-USA may have 700 or 800 members, but I am not sure how many are active. The ISO is probably the second largest left organization with about 1500 members.


Therefore, given this situation, what are the likely perspectives? The crisis of US capitalism is more advanced than the subjective factor. How will this play out? Where will the workers go? As we know from history, the working class will tend to move into their traditional organizations, which in the US, means the unions [more than 13,000,000 members]. Many unorganized workers will look to join the unions. There will be left/right wings and splits, which will arise because of the continued failure of the policies supporting the Democrats. It will be vital that the tiny forces of Marxism will be part of that debate.

Although we are growing and other left groups may be growing as well, I think it would be highly unlikely that the working class in the USA, even the advanced section, would look past the unions and seek to build a socialist or communist party. However, if the concrete circumstances change, we would need to evaluate the new situation. Indeed, it would be very interesting how the victory of the socialist revolution in a country in the world would change the situation in the US. However, even if a LP was created to cut across the move to a revolutionary party, Marxists would have to address the LP and the workers around them, to win them away from its leaders' influence.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Um, what do typical "labour parties" do?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/labour-party-uk-t116182/index.html

1) "Formation of the proletariat into a class [for itself]"? Nope.
2) "Overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy"? Nope.
3) "Conquest of political power by the proletariat"? Nope.

[Yehuda Stern]

Fuck man with people like you around, no wonder people think that we are a bunch of crazy fucks.

People who believe social-democratic parties can become mass revolutionary workers parties, though, are seen as very much in touch with reality.


You sound like a typical "2 men and a dog" party representative and have no connection to the real objective conditions.

Hmm, the usual quote. This is why I call you people Grantbots - you can't even think up your own insult. As for the latter part, I'm a member of a communist anti-Zionist group in Israel which attends basically every demonstration and is active in every way possible, so I'm going to bet we're much more in touch with "real objective conditions" than your make-believe international stuck in various reformist and bourgeois parties around the world.


And that's not a personal attack

It actually is, and as we can see from your last sentence it's nothing more than an attempt to dodge further debate as clearly you cannot answer me. You have given another, longer version of your two-sentence "I don't see where the opportunism is..." speech. Fine. It doesn't answer the question: Trotsky said that a revolutionary must advocate a revolutionary party! Only under special conditions of massive workers struggles, that required a political expression, did he advocate the slogan for a Labor Party. How do you explain that contradiction? I'm still waiting!

[BobKKKindle$]

It's worth pointing out that for all the insults that are exchanged between them the IMT and CWI are basically on the same page when it comes to their positions on whether Marxists should support the creation of a labour party in countries where they do not already exist, and the role that these parties play in relation to the working class. For a long period of time the primary activity of the CWI in the UK has been to call for the creation of a "New Workers Party" to take the place of New Labour, with the hope that such a party would be able to return to the Keynesian politics of "Old Labour" - a hope that is based on the false assumption that there was once a progressive Labour Party, friendly towards the interests of the working class, committed to the struggles of workers in other countries apart from Britain, geared towards fundamental changes in the way that British society is organized, that has since degenerated into a neo-liberal apparatus. I say a false assumption because a brief look at the history of the Labour Party indicates that it has always been a weapon in the hands of the ruling class and their allies in the trade union movement, used to limit the scope of working-class struggles, the most obvious example of this tendency being the implementation of an incomes policy, designed to limit wage demands whilst allowing the bosses to increase their prices, under a Labour government during the 1970s.

The politics of Militant were also characterized by a devotion to reformism as they consistently argued that it would be possible to introduce socialism by means of an enabling act whereby a majority of MPs in Parliament would vote in favour of the nationalization of major industries without any participation on the part of the working class whatsoever. This stands in contrast to the Marxist theory of the state which holds that the current state apparatus is geared towards the needs of the ruling class, and so the overthrow of capitalism must also involve the abolition of the bourgeois state, alongside the emergence of a new state apparatus as part of the revolutionary process, rooted in workers control over the means of production, allowing for the instant recall of all elected delegates, and the use of instructions, with these delegates being paid no more than the wage of the average skilled worker. The reformism of Militant also manifested itself in a willingness to accept the politics of the rest of the Labour Party when it came to the Malvinas Conflict, as Militant, like the rest of the British establishment, did not call for the defeat of the British state, but merely oppossed the initial decision to dispatch a task force, after which they adopted a position of ostensible neutrality - and of course, who can forget the recent decision of the CWI to invite the general secretary of the Prison Officers Association to speak at their annual conference, Socialism, on the grounds that prison offers are "workers in uniform", as well as the threat issued by the Anti-Poll Tax Federation, of which Militant were an integral part, to "name names", after the riots?

These are not revolutionary politics. "No2EU" is just the most recent manifestation of a long history of accommodation to nationalism and reformism. Socialists should not conceal out politics with half-hearted campaigns like the CNWP - our goal is to maintain our political independence from all the enemies of the class, to build the revolutionary party, to reject reformism in its entireity.

[Tower of Bebel]

I just don't think it works to urge the unions to create a labor party. The article isn't so bad, but I don't believe it can have the effect it intends to have on the workers.

[Revy]

Although we are growing and other left groups may be growing as well, I think it would be highly unlikely that the working class in the USA, even the advanced section, would look past the unions and seek to build a socialist or communist party. However, if the concrete circumstances change, we would need to evaluate the new situation. Indeed, it would be very interesting how the victory of the socialist revolution in a country in the world would change the situation in the US. However, even if a LP was created to cut across the move to a revolutionary party, Marxists would have to address the LP and the workers around them, to win them away from its leaders' influence.

My idea of a workers' party is building a socialist party. The socialist party is a union itself, a broad union of workers not by trade, but by class. It is a union to raise political demands. It is a labor party not because it is made up of workers, but because it is that and more: it advances the interests of workers toward a classless society. And that is something that an impotent "labor party" cannot do, especially one that leaves itself open to petty-bourgeois and bourgeois influence as most such projects have. And why is that? Because they never had a radical foundation to begin with.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Comrade, to be fair what I was referring to above in my rebuttal of Eat the Rich was the PNNC party, or "proletarian not necessarily communist" party, in the middle between the various bourgeois "labour party" projects on the one hand and communist parties on the other. "Deep entryism" would be a valid tactic for such PNNCs.

I'm not sure when in its history the SPD was a PNNC (maybe because of Lassalle, or maybe because of competing visions of socialism later on), but I think the short-lived USPD was one such party.

[Hit The North]

So if a mass Labour Party is created in the States, it would be through the organized workers.


Well your problem is that the proletariat of the United States is neither organised nor conscious enough to make a mass Labour Party anything more than a slogan in the mouths of a tiny minority of frustrated revolutionaries who desire to find a means of kick-starting the class struggle.

The problem is that soon as the class struggle kick-starts itself and the workers do become organised and conscious enough, the slogan for the creation of a Labour Party (as opposed to a socialist or communist party) becomes instantly redundant for revolutionaries because it holds back the political development of the class to a point which its best elements will already exceed. You'd be 'leading' the struggle from behind!


If a Labour Party would be created, it would radicaly change the situation in the States and give an unprecedented advance in the consciousness of the proletariat in the States. You have this the wrong way around. The situation in the United States would have to radically change before a Labour Party would be created. Even then, the experience, in Europe and elsewhere, of these mass reformist parties of labour, is that they do not, once established, give an unprecedented advance in the consciousness of workers - the very contrary.


A Labour Party (which again does not mean New Labour, Britain style), would be a fertile place where Marxists could win over a huge section of the working class in the States, by working within it (while maintaining their political and organizational independence).I have to say that, for me, the reasoning behind this call is based on the absurd requirement for a mass reformist party which can be the object of entryism, as if entryism was some holy writ of organisational principle. This in itself is based on a misunderstanding of the conditions which produce mass reformist parties, which are conditions of decline in intensity of class struggle. Once formed these constitutional parties of labour are far from fertile environments but, in fact, become dead in terms of advancing class struggle. So, your call is really to summon up a cadaver in which the revolutionaries can be the maggots.

The trick would be to prevent a Labor Party in the US, which has, by its very nature, the need to adapt to and negotiate with US Capital, from almost immediately degenerating into a 'New Labour' style party. It would take a high level of class struggle to prevent this. But, again, if there's a high level of class struggle, why the hell are we messing around with a Labour Party?

[Klaatu]

The original poster asked if the American Democratic party is a worker's party...

Consider that in the 19th century, Democrats were the conservatives, while the
Republicans were the progressives (e.g. Lincoln)

This reversed itself in the early 20th century. Now the progressives are Democrats.
But this whole game of political musical chairs may help explain why there is actually
such little difference between the two major parties? :confused:

[Tower of Bebel]

The problem is that soon as the class struggle kick-starts itself and the workers do become organised and conscious enough, the slogan for the creation of a Labour Party (as opposed to a socialist or communist party) becomes instantly redundant for revolutionaries because it holds back the political development of the class to a point which its best elements will already exceed. You'd be 'leading' the struggle from behind!This is true when the slogan does not contribute to the self-organization of the working class.

[KC]

Well your problem is that the proletariat of the United States is neither organised nor conscious enough to make a mass Labour Party anything more than a slogan in the mouths of a tiny minority of frustrated revolutionaries who desire to find a means of kick-starting the class struggle.

The problem is that soon as the class struggle kick-starts itself and the workers do become organised and conscious enough, the slogan for the creation of a Labour Party (as opposed to a socialist or communist party) becomes instantly redundant for revolutionaries because it holds back the political development of the class to a point which its best elements will already exceed. You'd be 'leading' the struggle from behind!This is what I have brought up to Socialist Alternative members who respond by telling me how productive it was working in Labour before it changed and also bring up "Workers' Parties" that sections of the CWI work in in their respective countries (particularly in Brazil and Greece).

[Asoka89]

In the UK, we've had a Labour Party for over a hundred years. It still has yet to act in favour of the working class.

You should start reading Macnair writings on Labour as a "bourgeois workers' party". It is still an advance over our system in the United States.

[Asoka89]

Of course the Democrats aren't the worker's parties, but working class and other marginalized groups are in the Democratic tent. Start with building independent working class action outside the electoral system and plant your flag in Democratic primaries on oppositional, openly Marxist platforms later on, then move from there.

The American political system is rigged against electoral 3rd party efforts. They will fail. Movement build and build a working class party on open, democratic, Marxist basis.

[Die Neue Zeit]

You should start reading Macnair writings on Labour as a "bourgeois workers' party". It is still an advance over our system in the United States.

You should read the posts up above, comrade. SP-USA comrades prefer the SPD model over stillborn Liberal shit that was Labour.

[And having read those writings and seen the video, I'm not one iota convinced. Mike Macnair isn't the be-all-and-end-all, especially after Paul Cockshott's critique: http://reality.gn.apc.org/polemic/ ]