SEIU breaks with Democrats in North Carolina: development of a workers' party?

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

The Service Employees International Union, SEIU, has declared that after Democrats in North Carolina refused to even support single payer health care reform, they are forming a new party called "North Carolina First Party." I think it is a sign of things moving in the right direction for the labor movement, which has so clearly been betrayed by the Democrats.

Some articles about the story:
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/04/seiu-launches-third-party-in-north-carolina.php

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/political-media/its-war-seiu-starting-third-party-in-north-carolina/

[Crux]

Great news!

[x371322]

Why not a national party? Maybe that'll be next on the agenda.

I do wish the unions would ditch the democrats. A well organized labor movement might could rival the tea baggers. If this works then at least it's a step in the right direction.

[which doctor]

I wouldn't get too excited. SEIU is a 'big business' union and Andy Stern is really close with Obama and the Democratic Party, so I wouldn't expect much out of this. But Andy Stern will be leaving soon, so we'll see if SEIU goes in another direction, but I doubt it.

On a related note, Adolph Reed &c started a Labor Party in the US with unions in 1996, it was growing pretty quickly, but seems to have since stalled. I'm not sure what they're up to now, and they haven't updated their website in ages, but last I saw Reed he seemed to suggest that they weren't entirely defunct.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_Party_(United_States_-_1996)

[Die Neue Zeit]

Why not a national party? Maybe that'll be next on the agenda.

To you and the OP: Don't be ridiculous. At best, it's on the same level as New York's mis-labelled "Working Families" party.


On a related note, Adolph Reed &c started a Labor Party in the US with unions in 1996, it was growing pretty quickly, but seems to have since stalled.

This (http://www.thelaborparty.org/)?

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

To you and the OP: Don't be ridiculous. At best, it's on the same level as New York's mis-labelled "Working Families" party.



This (http://www.thelaborparty.org/)?

According to the wiki article though, the "Working Families Party" usually just endorses democratic candidates, whereas it sounds like the "North Carolina First" party is more actively breaking away from the democrats. Who knows if it will develop further, but it's been over 10 years since any big unions have tried to break with the Democrats. This is certainly an indication that people in the unions are feeling more alienated from the democrats and looking towards forming their own political parties.

Is it ridiculous to say that's a good thing or that the working class needs its own party?

[RED DAVE]

This could either be the most important labor development in the US since the CIO or a phony party like the New York Working Families farce. New York has had at least two other parties of this sort: the Liberal Party and the Brotherhood Party. The purpose of both of them was to keep labor voting for Democrats. The LP occasionally ran candidates of it own, but no one gave a shit.

The one genuine labor-oriented party in New York State was the American Labor Party, which, unfortunately, was dominated by the CPUSA and was hounded out of existence during McCarthyism.

RED DAVE

[Die Neue Zeit]

According to the wiki article though, the "Working Families Party" usually just endorses democratic candidates, whereas it sounds like the "North Carolina First" party is more actively breaking away from the democrats. Who knows if it will develop further, but it's been over 10 years since any big unions have tried to break with the Democrats. This is certainly an indication that people in the unions are feeling more alienated from the democrats and looking towards forming their own political parties.

Is it ridiculous to say that's a good thing or that the working class needs its own party?

I just read numerous blogs and blog comments on Independent Political Report:

http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/category/socialist-parties/

There's chatter in the comments about their stupidity in not backing the Greens (I think it goes both ways, since the Greens won't re-label themselves Progressives nationally and aren't registered in North Carolina)


In the end, the nay-sayers will be proven right: they won’t run their own candidates, and they’ll come out in favor of some Democrat or another. But their ploy will, probably, also succeed; someone will step up, and gleefully take all that support for a primary run.

I agree that the working class needs its own political party, but fledging ones like the Workers Party in America (http://www.workers-party.com/) - with a strict workers-only membership policy - are better for organic links to the class as a whole than parties based on trade unions that encompass a small minority of the American workforce.

[Saorsa]

"North Carolina First"?

That's not that reassuring.

[x371322]

I don't really see how I'm being "ridiculous." I just said if it works, then at least it's a step in the right direction. Meaning breaking away from the democrats would be the right direction. How is that being "ridiculous?" :rolleyes:

[Die Neue Zeit]

"North Carolina First"?

That's not that reassuring.

I forgot about the name problem. Czad, I edited my post above.

[x371322]

I agree that the working class needs its own political party, but fledging ones like the Workers Party in America (http://www.workers-party.com/) - with a strict workers-only membership policy - are better for organic links to the class as a whole than parties based on trade unions that encompass a small minority of the American workforce.

I definitely agree with this statement. The WPA is one of the parties I'm looking at. I'm very impressed with their platform.

[syndicat]

I agree that the working class needs its own political party, but fledging ones like the Workers Party in America (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.workers-party.com/) - with a strict workers-only membership policy - are better for organic links to the class as a whole than parties based on trade unions that encompass a small minority of the American workforce.

uh, jacob, what are the relevant membership numbers of WPA versus the unions?

[which doctor]

This (http://www.thelaborparty.org/)?
Yes. I know someone who was on the local chapter committee, and she was under the assumption that the Labor Party had died.

[Crux]

"North Carolina First"?

That's not that reassuring.
I think that's in reference to not wanting to be a "Third" party, not North Carolinian nationalism.

[vyborg]

The Labor Party was a great possibility and was lost. Let's see what happens now.
For sure, only the unions can create a mass workers party in the US

[Proletarian Ultra]

The Service Employees International Union, SEIU, has declared that after Democrats in North Carolina refused to even support single payer health care reform, they are forming a new party called "North Carolina First Party." I think it is a sign of things moving in the right direction for the labor movement, which has so clearly been betrayed by the Democrats.

Some articles about the story:
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/04/seiu-launches-third-party-in-north-carolina.php

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/political-media/its-war-seiu-starting-third-party-in-north-carolina/

Don't get too excited. Only point is to be a spoiler against Dems who voted against the healthcare bill.

[Revy]

"North Carolina First"?

That's not that reassuring.

Cindy Sheehan advocated the idea of creating a progressive third party, "The First Party" was her idea, in order to rid the stigma of being a third party. I suppose it's inspired by that.

edit: scratch that. They call themselves "North Carolina First". not "North Carolina First Party". The similarity with the name Cindy Sheehan proposed is probably a coincidence.

[chegitz guevara]

I don't think this is a real beak with the Dems. More of a threat, one which savvy Dems won't even heed, since Labor's politics won't allow it to break with the lesser of two evils. If they were serious, they'd have gone with the Greens or the Labor Party.

[Revy]

I think the Labor Party is dead. their website has not been updated since 2006.

[Martin Blank]

uh, jacob, what are the relevant membership numbers of WPA versus the unions?

Y'know, I can really appreciate Jacob's enthusiasm here, but, yeah. We have a functioning Unit in Greensboro and a few supporters scattered in the western part of the state. I'm certainly not going to be the one to claim we could go head-to-head with SEIU anytime soon.

As for what the SEIU is doing, I don't see it as a move toward anything lasting. It will be a one-off thing, if they can pull off getting the signatures (not as easy as it sounds, even with their numbers), and will fold after 2010. Moreover, given what SEIU has been doing in California with the health care workers, I would expect that the structure of "North Carolina First" would be so bureaucratic that Stalin would blush.

[Proletarian Ultra]

I think the Labor Party is dead. their website has not been updated since 2006.

That was a South Carolina group, designed to take advantage of SC's electoral fusion law. It's been supplanted by a SC branch of the Working Families Party (http://scwfp.org/). I think Red Dave is too negative on WFP. Fusion politics is the most realistic way we have to build a party of workers under the structurally hostile American electoral system.

[Crux]

That was a South Carolina group, designed to take advantage of SC's electoral fusion law. It's been supplanted by a SC branch of the Working Families Party (http://scwfp.org/). I think Red Dave is too negative on WFP. Fusion politics is the most realistic way we have to build a party of workers under the structurally hostile American electoral system.
Eh, no. Grass root campaigning is worth infinitively more than looking to the democrats which is an inevitable dead end.

[Revy]

That was a South Carolina group, designed to take advantage of SC's electoral fusion law. It's been supplanted by a SC branch of the Working Families Party (http://scwfp.org/). I think Red Dave is too negative on WFP. Fusion politics is the most realistic way we have to build a party of workers under the structurally hostile American electoral system.

But instead of building itself, the Working Families Party merely acts as an supporter of the Democratic Party, with the false pretense of third party independence.

If fusion politics means allying with the Democratic Party, I don't see how that advances us more than it advances them. It still promotes the illusion of Democratic Party being part of progressive politics, so what the WFP is doing might actually be strategically worse for building a workers' party.

[which doctor]

That was a South Carolina group, designed to take advantage of SC's electoral fusion law. It's been supplanted by a SC branch of the Working Families Party (http://scwfp.org/). I think Red Dave is too negative on WFP. Fusion politics is the most realistic way we have to build a party of workers under the structurally hostile American electoral system.
But the Labor Party had chapters all across the country, know what happened to those?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Y'know, I can really appreciate Jacob's enthusiasm here, but, yeah.

I responded to him in the Reform or Revolution thread because he made a comment there on building movements through unions. There I stated that membership wasn't as important as the WPA's RIU approach.

[RED DAVE]

That was a South Carolina group, designed to take advantage of SC's electoral fusion law. It's been supplanted by a SC branch of the Working Families Party (http://scwfp.org/). I think Red Dave is too negative on WFP. Fusion politics is the most realistic way we have to build a party of workers under the structurally hostile American electoral system.I'm reiterating what others have said, but what the fuck makes you think that "fusion politics," by which I suppose you mean working inside the Democratic Party "is the most realistic way we have to build a party of workers under the structurally hostile American electoral system"?

Movement after movement has tried to take over the Democratic Party. The Labor Movement tried it in the late 1930s and 40s. The Ban the Bomb movement tried it in the early 60s. The Civil Rights Movement tried in the mid-60s. The anti-Vietnam Movement in the late 60s. The result was always the same: failure.

And what was the result when the peace movement joined the Democrats en masse in 04 and 08?

Only when Labor and the mass movements make a decisive break with the Democrats will there be any kind of shift in the political weather in the US.

RED DAVE

[Die Neue Zeit]

For sure, only the unions can create a mass workers party in the US

Like I said, when they encompass a small minority of the American workforce? :rolleyes:


If fusion politics means allying with the Democratic Party, I don't see how that advances us more than it advances them. It still promotes the illusion of Democratic Party being part of progressive politics, so what the WFP is doing might actually be strategically worse for building a workers' party.

At this point, I dare say in this thread than even a proper "bourgeois worker" party in the US (as opposed to something like the WPA) can only be built by NON-union organizing. Cindy Sheehan and those contemplating splits from the Dumb Rat apparatus should be looking to the populist half-model of Die Linke and not to any incarnation of "Old" Labour. The Greens need to swallow their pride in their constraining label.

Name-wise, "First" doesn't sound appealing on its own. Maybe "Progressive(s) First"? Maybe add "Labor" in between "Progressive" and "First"?

[Proletarian Ultra]

I'm reiterating what others have said, but what the fuck makes you think that "fusion politics," by which I suppose you mean working inside the Democratic Party "is the most realistic way we have to build a party of workers under the structurally hostile American electoral system"?

Fusion politics means forming a separate party and strategically cross-endorsing some major-party candidates for concrete demands. With the understanding that you will run a spoiler next time and fuck up his re-election if the guy doesn't comply.

The American electoral system is designed to prevent class-conscious workers from electing their own representatives. It's practically explicit in the Federalist. If for whatever reason a pure but doomed third party vote isn't an acceptable option - most workers seem to think it isn't - fusion strategy is preferable to wholesale liquidation into a bourgeois party. BTW: Cross-endorsement is illegal in most states.

I don't fucking know. You've got an organization whose active members almost all come from ACORN and the unions. That might not be a worker's party but it is a party of workers. It endorses mostly Democrats but not only Democrats and not every Democrat. Not long ago WFP took the NY state senate away from the Democrats by endorsing a Republican for one seat; basically just to show they could.

Is it fucking lame and fucking cynical? Yes. Is it a real independent worker's party? No. Does it bring us a step closer to an independent worker's party? You tell me.

[Proletarian Ultra]

EDIT: double post. Sorry

[vyborg]

Like I said, when they encompass a small minority of the American workforce? :rolleyes:


Some millions of workers is a great start anyway...

[KurtFF8]

Is it fucking lame and fucking cynical? Yes. Is it a real independent worker's party? No. Does it bring us a step closer to an independent worker's party? You tell me.

Exactly. The nature of the American electoral system is certainly not favorable for any third party. The PR systems we see in many European countries are much more favorable for workers' parties (and of course the historical development of Europe in general makes this difference the case too).

And the fact that it's hard for third parties in the US to make it anywhere of course means that independent workers' parties are going to have an even greater uphill battle ahead of them.

It certainly poses a tough strategic question for US leftists in terms of building a party. That's why I think the most successful use of US elections is simply the understanding that they can provide a venue for spreading a message (which is itself not always the obvious choice). And even winning seats in alternate systems doesn't guarantee that a Party will "stay revolutionary." We have plenty of examples of the in the world to show otherwise (Germany up to WWI, arguably the PCF in France during May 68, etc.)