The Struggle for a Workers Party

[Geiseric]

Comrades, the step foward for the class struggle in the U.S. in the face of the capitalist offensive against the working class is to organize the working class a party to call its own, a Labor Party. The Labor Party would link its struggle to emancipate the working class with the most oppressed layers of society, including but not limited to the oppressed nationalities, women, and gays.

The working class identifies itself not as workers, but as Americans, who work just like the bankers do! The occupy model of "Spontaniety," is not effective, and attempting it again is counter productive. It's been wrecked by the Petit Bourgeois postmodernists who are divorced from the working class. A Labor Party, with the Unions at the core of it, is the only course that is possible for us to take if we wish to be successful at fighting back against the capitalists and the Bourgeois state. The Workers Party would bring the class struggle to the working class through actions on a scale unprecedented in the U.S.

One factor is enabling the capitalists to enforce Austerity. It isn't "American Apathy," or the myths that exist about "Socialism is alien to America." The one factor that is enabling the democrats to dismantle the movements is the Trade Union bureaucracy, run by Trumka. His position is against forming a Labor Party, for keeping the working class not mobilized, and in confusion, which allows his fat ass to sit as president of the AFL, and for his friends to keep their positions and salaries. He sold out the Unions in Wisonsin, and is also doing so in South Carolina, where the Transport unions are presently putting forward a call for the formation of a nation wide Labor Party. Advocates for a Labor Party are Enemies of the class traitor Trumka.

So whose with me? Tell me yay or nay!

[The Jay]

I don't hate it, but am not familiar enough with AFL politics to comment on it.

[kurr]

It's a pure fantasy so.. nay. Unionism has proven to be a dead end and there will be no more resurgence of trade unions. Labor-based parties have all degenerated into petty reformism and/or swallowed up by the Democratic Party. The only strategy for a revolutionary party in the US is with white workers under the leadership of revolutionary leaders from oppressed nations (African, Indigenous, and Latino).

This party has to be be tied with other anti-colonial parties throughout the world to comprise an actual Communist International. Anything other than that is doomed to failure and infiltration. We can look at the 20th century as proof.

[Geiseric]

AFL Politics is basically, "We'll support the democrats and allow them to dismantle the rank and file struggle that we want to kill."

And 2nd comrade, you didn't read my post. And how are you going to organize non union workers into a communist party? What's your plan?

[kurr]

And 2nd comrade, you didn't read my post. And how are you going to organize non union workers into a communist party? What's your plan?

If you're talking to me...Uhhh... just like any other workers considering most workers in this country aren't unionized. You're going to have to take it right to their doorstep and work within the communities.

[ed miliband]

because the history of labour parties in the rest of the world has been so wonderful, right?

[Igor]

So whose with me? Tell me yay or nay!

Sorry dude it's gotta be nay. What makes you think this time it would result in anything else than lukewarm centre-leftism that has nothing to do with the original goals of the movement? Most old socialist parties can trace their history to real and actually revolutionary activities in the early 20th century, and occasionally even attempts at revolution like in Finland. But then look at them today, and be ready to drink away your misery

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

The party model is dead and has been for a very very long time. I say we form a guild or perhaps a secret society.

[Thirsty Crow]

The only strategy for a revolutionary party in the US is with white workers under the leadership of revolutionary leaders from oppressed nations (African, Indigenous, and Latino).

Tell me, how would this form of leadership be organized?
Assuming that these white workers are actually politicized workers and potential party members - would policies such as ethnically based admission to central and executive organs be implemented?
Or would you abandon this organizational approach in favour of heavy propaganda aimed at consolidating the submission of the working class to a specific leadership?
Or something else entirely?

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Yeah a race-based leadership policy is idiotic and would likely generate even less enthusiasm than the union based anachronism the op favors. Not to mention the counter-revolutionary character of all the 'anti-colonial' parties you would like to ally with. Why the hell should anyone risk whatever small luxury they've managed to scrape together in order to get a new group of capitalists in power? May as well stay home and watch tv.

[Thirsty Crow]

The Workers Party would bring the class struggle to the working class through actions on a scale unprecedented in the U.S.

How exactly?

All I see here is a poor argument based on the supposed scale of the actions. Not a word on the kind of actions you're talking about, or what's probably more important, just why would this "bring class struggle" to the working class.

And finally, it's obvious that this institution fethishism is very often coupled with a poor understanding of the dynamics of class struggle, verging on idealism. If you would organize a workers' political party standing in elections (which is actually irrelevant for the point - standing in elections, that is), then you would need to presuppose that ideological persuasion and propaganda is what will "bring the class struggle to the working class". Which, as I said, hinges on idealism and ideas about radical minorities creating history, rather than the actual class struggle, which cannot be imposed from without - and be assured that most of the contemporary workers, no matter the country, would perceive such positioning as from without.

And I know very well that this all might be taken to be utterly pessimistic and/or "spontaneist". As for the latter, I surely advocate the existence of the revolutionary party - on a world scale. I think that in the decisive moments of class struggle - including its political and somewhat narrowly conceived economic aspects - actions by such a party would be very important. I advocate the existence and activity - theoretical, propaganda, and organizing/intervention into concrete struggles waged by workers - of the revolutionary political organization in periods of the imbalance of class forces in favour of the bourgeoisie, that is, in times of pronounced bourgeois hegemony (while the distingushing characteristic of proper spontaneism - or better yet, of councilism, is the advocacy of dissolution of organization in such times, apart from very informal reading circles).
But we're not in a period of open class struggle - from both sides! - so that we could expect radicalization in months or few years. That's why you can't and shouldn't expect that some self-professed revolutionary theoreticians and politicos will suddenly and out of the blue impose class struggle on the proletariat.

And that is not even mentioning other political pitfalls of such a concept, like the very real possibility of the development of substitutionism both in theory and practice, and possibly opportunism.

As for pessimism, you can call me pessimist. I think it's better to prepare for worse and devise the appropriate response than to fall for temporary and short-lived excitement and enthusiasm.

[Die Neue Zeit]

A Labor Party, with the Unions at the core of it, is the only course that is possible

Like I said in the other thread, this is a tried and failed model, even on a compromise level: http://www.revleft.com/vb/lesser-two-evils-t172262/index.html

[citizen of industry]

Where is the call for a labor party coming from? If the labor aristocracy was calling for a labor party, that'd be something. But they are completely in the service of the democrats and bourgeoisie. A labor party goes against their class interests. Is the rank and file calling for a labor party? If so, that'd be something. If not, the call for a labor party is going to fall on deaf ears. And if the rank and file isn't demanding a labor party, why not stay true and demand a revolutionary party? By the time trade union consciousness is ready for a labor party, it will be ready for a revolutionary party.

[Positivist]

It's a pure fantasy so.. nay. Unionism has proven to be a dead end and there will be no more resurgence of trade unions. Labor-based parties have all degenerated into petty reformism and/or swallowed up by the Democratic Party. The only strategy for a revolutionary party in the US is with white workers under the leadership of revolutionary leaders from oppressed nations (African, Indigenous, and Latino).

This party has to be be tied with other anti-colonial parties throughout the world to comprise an actual Communist International. Anything other than that is doomed to failure and infiltration. We can look at the 20th century as proof.

This is LLCO level third-worldist. I'm all for a Comintern which subordinates every party to the international organization but forcibly bringing all revolutionaries under anti-colonialists? You try that, tell me how it works for ya.

[kurr]

Tell me, how would this form of leadership be organized?
Assuming that these white workers are actually politicized workers and potential party members - would policies such as ethnically based admission to central and executive organs be implemented?
Or would you abandon this organizational approach in favour of heavy propaganda aimed at consolidating the submission of the working class to a specific leadership?
Or something else entirely?

This form of organization already exists somewhat in the Uhuru Movement. They have a main party - the African People's Socialist Party, an international wing - African Socialist International, and a non-African wing mostly comprised of settler Euro-Americans - African People's Solidarity Committee. This non-African wing operates under the leadership of the main party and organizes in the White communities.

This model should coalesce with Mexican nationalist (like Union del Barrio) and Indigenous radicals into one single party, IMO.

[kurr]

Yeah a race-based leadership policy is idiotic and would likely generate even less enthusiasm than the union based anachronism the op favors. Not to mention the counter-revolutionary character of all the 'anti-colonial' parties you would like to ally with. Why the hell should anyone risk whatever small luxury they've managed to scrape together in order to get a new group of capitalists in power? May as well stay home and watch tv.

Spoken like a true White nationalist. What is so "counter-revolutionary" about anti-colonial organizations in the US? Who is wanting a "new group of capitalists in power"? If you are obviously so ignorant, why even bother posting?


This is LLCO level third-worldist. I'm all for a Comintern which subordinates every party to the international organization but forcibly bringing all revolutionaries under anti-colonialists? You try that, tell me how it works for ya.

Actually, it has nothing to do with LLCO or Third-Worldism at all. Third-Worldism (and much of LLCO's writings) argues that the only revolutionary subject is outside the US, Canada, and Europe. LLCO sees revolution as a global peoples war to "starve out" the US and internal insurrection by largely foreign revolutionaries. From then, the JDPON (Joint Dictatorship of the Proletariat of the Oppressed Nations) would then disperse non-indigenous peoples of the US throughout the "Third World".

I advocate none of that as evidence by my posts.

And if you fail to address the historical colonial question as so many White "left" parties do, and this is everyone from who idealizes Trade Unions to so-called "anti-Revisionist" Marxist-Leninists, then you are no better than Social democrats, fighting for more pie.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Questioning you really isn't an example of white nationalism no matter how much you might like it to be, particularly since I'm not white. I'm not aware of any 'anti-colonial' parties in the US worth mentioning, I'm talking about all the 'revolutionary' movements in the third world that succeeded in only replacing a foreign white ruling class with a local non-white ruling class and were content to leave it at that. Or is that cool with you?

[kurr]

Questioning you really isn't an example of white nationalism no matter how much you might like it to be, particularly since I'm not white.

That does not matter. Barack Obama isn't white yet serves White power.


I'm not aware of any 'anti-colonial' parties in the US worth mentioning,

Which reads like: I'm totally ignorant of such organizations and haven't bothered to do the research on them.



I'm talking about all the 'revolutionary' movements in the third world that succeeded in only replacing a foreign white ruling class with a local non-white ruling class and were content to leave it at that. Or is that cool with you?

And that is not what I'm remotely talking about in the least.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

This party has to be be tied with other anti-colonial parties throughout the world to comprise an actual Communist International. Anything other than that is doomed to failure and infiltration. We can look at the 20th century as proof.

So what the fuck is this then? Why don't you get your own bullshit stratgy together first and then lead my feeble mind to the promised land, brother. :rolleyes:

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

And seriously the Uhuru guys?:laugh:

Edit: let me build on this. The white members of the Uhuru movement are barred from the decision making process outside of the ghetto the are afforded by the movement. This is not a revolutionary strategy its demagoguery. On a certain level I can see why putting activist whites into a second-class citizenship position inside the organization could be amusing in the short term, but I'm pretty sure you're just trolling us at this point.

[Positivist]

Actually, it has nothing to do with LLCO or Third-Worldism at all. Third-Worldism (and much of LLCO's writings) argues that the only revolutionary subject is outside the US, Canada, and Europe. LLCO sees revolution as a global peoples war to "starve out" the US and internal insurrection by largely foreign revolutionaries. From then, the JDPON (Joint Dictatorship of the Proletariat of the Oppressed Nations) would then disperse non-indigenous peoples of the US throughout the "Third World".

I advocate none of that as evidence by my posts.

And if you fail to address the historical colonial question as so many White "left" parties do, and this is everyone from who idealizes Trade Unions to so-called "anti-Revisionist" Marxist-Leninists, then you are no better than Social democrats, fighting for more pie.

I agree that there needs to be an anti-colonial struggle which is linked to the workers struggles of the core capitalist countries, but I don't agree that the latter should be subordinated to the former as a matter of principle, and leadership definitely shouldn't be based on race. Now this means I don't support subordination to white or western leadership either. Race shouldn't be the driving factor of appointing leadership. Only a truely international workers movement can succeed in thwarting capitalism.

[Камо́ Зэд]

From a Marxist-Leninist viewpoint, one of the major problems with leftism in the United States concerns the issue of the prominence of revisionist and liberal attitudes. In my relatively short time as a Marxist, my opinion with regards to non-Marxist-Leninist politics transformed in the following sequence of phases: 1) that "revisionism" was a petty sectarian buzzword (and indeed it can be, as I'm sure many of you will agree); 2) that revisionism is the bane of all proletarian endeavors and no good comes of collaborating with those not armed with a sound Marxist-Leninist theoretical framework; and, finally, 3) that the progress that has so far been made for the proletariat and the oppressed groups of North America is rapidly being undone and, in an age of unprecedented reaction in any so-called "progressive" country, powerful, collective action is needed and needed immediately. Just as revolution in colonial-type countries occurs in a bourgeois-democratic stage and then a socialist stage, revolution in capitalist-imperialist countries may occur at first in a stage of united leftist action against the forces of reaction and austerity, then passing into a next stage or further stages in which Marxism-Leninism becomes the dominant theoretical framework for the construction and perpetuation of revolutionary proletarian socialism. My recommendation, then, isn't so much for a Labor Party as much as it is a massive Coalition of the Revolutionary Left, powerful enough, if not to crush capitalism and reaction, then to injure it. It occurs to me that perhaps an international network of such Coalitions in capitalist-imperialist countries would shake the very foundations of global capitalism, if only such a network does not lose sight of the revolutionary and proletarian class nature of their struggle.

[Geiseric]

So to anybody who disagrees with the prospect of a labor party, what is your alternative? A hundred sects of leftist intellectuals spread through the country, divorced from the actual working class?

Things that the petit bourgeois members of the forum maybe aren't familliar with, such as social security, state medical care, and public education are all being dismantled. There are two wars going on, numerous imperialist interventions, with absolutely NO political opposition to these things. The labor party is a necessity, to keep the victories the working class has won intact.

The labor party will have in its program a blatant stance of opposition to the opportunistic policies taken by the Trumkas and Gompers which are ruining the unions. However if we want the working class to actually mobilize, they need a voting alternative, and a party to provide a voting alternative, to the bourgeois parties. The bourgeois parties allow nothing worth voting for, so how can anybody here honestly think that the working class will grow in consciousness if they see themselves unable, collectively, to force the bourgeois state to yield its offensive?

Protecting social security is not reformist, it's a huge issue to the working class. Advocating for amnesty for all immigrants isn't reformist. Nor is forcing the bourgeois parties to stop in their tracks the attacks on unions. These are working class, not reformist bourgeois issues. Fighting austerity isn't reformism! Anybody who thinks so is displaying an attitude similar to the petit bourgeois "leftists," who i've experienced to be nothing more than sects.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

My suggestion is we not repeat the 20th century. You haven't even made this party yet and it's already degenerated into reformism, social security? Really?

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Where is the call for a labor party coming from? If the labor aristocracy was calling for a labor party, that'd be something. But they are completely in the service of the democrats and bourgeoisie. A labor party goes against their class interests. Is the rank and file calling for a labor party? If so, that'd be something. If not, the call for a labor party is going to fall on deaf ears. And if the rank and file isn't demanding a labor party, why not stay true and demand a revolutionary party? By the time trade union consciousness is ready for a labor party, it will be ready for a revolutionary party.
I have had that same thought. I suppose that the transformation that would be needed to forge a real worker's party in the US might not include the emergence of a Leninist party to lead the revolution. So, I think it is possible to postulate that the revolution in the US might or might not involve a Labor Party. And I completely agree that anything like that formed at the present moment would just be another tool in the labor bureaucracy's kit to further tie the US proletariat to the bourgeoisie.

As for the third-worldist nonesense -- a lot of folks bought into that when I was coming of age. All the revolutionary action seemed to be in colonies or recent ex-colonies, and China. Workers in advanced countries were deemed to be too bought off with their privileges. All of these nationalist, anti-colonial movements have gone on to establish capitalist countries. The ANC had excellent credentials -- and they were heroic fighters against apartheid. Yet, look at where they have ended up. On the other side of a gun pointing at the workers of South Africa. The proletariat is the only force that has both the social power and the self-interest in overthrowing capitalism. And we agree there is a lot of work to be done in the workers of the world understanding their self-interests and fighting for them.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

My suggestion is we not repeat the 20th century. You haven't even made this party yet and it's already degenerated into reformism, social security? Really?
Comrade, we defend the social safety net, pathetic though it is, and demand far more. The issue of a Labor Party is a strategic issue, not a principled one. If this were to develop among a leftward moving working class, revolutionaries would get involved and try to attain leadership of the organization.

When there is real movement of the proletariat to the left in this country, we don't know exactly what form it will take. But the argument about being involved with the unions, I think, was decisively won in the 1920s and 30s in the US, with "yes" being the correct answer.

[Geiseric]

The working class and other citizens will never get fed up with capitalism unless there's an organization telling them that their problems are because of capitalism! It's a harsh reality. Working people will be pissed to all hell about their working conditions, being unemployed, being fucked by the state, etc. however working class people don't see capitalism as the problem. Working class people don't identify as working class yet. We can see that they're the working class, however most people think that they have a chance at making money if they "Put in some elbow grease."

And unless a labor party is around to provide an alternative program that benefits the working class through planning, providing services, and opposing the bourgeoisie's attempts to attack the working class, the age old attitude of "Well at least it's not me," will persist. The struggle of oppressed nationalities to organize themselves as oppressed nationalities should be supported unconditionally, for the emancipation of the working class starts at the most oppressed layers.

Also I didn't know that half of revleft were psychics who can instantly tell that a party representing a united front of all working class organizations will fall to reformism! Such clairvoyance not seen since nostradamus. If we look at all past succesful marxist organizations, the key to their success is banding togather the entire working class. For that to happen, unions need to be included, and play a central role in the party apparatus. There will be no working class movement without the unions, this has been proven by history. There can be no communist party without militant union organizers playing a part in it. As long as they uphold the party's non opportunist, militant program, there won't be a problem!

However much the union bureaucracy attempts to co-opt it, the more the working class militants in the party need to work to fight against this. I can't stress this enough! The formation of the party itself meant opposing these opportunist elements, not subordinating the party to them! Their goal is to subordinate the unions to the democrats, and not form a party, Trumka has explicitly stated this! If you don't support an independent workers political party, like the one that the Leibknechts, Marx and Engels pioneered, you are helping him strangle and mislead the working class.

[A Marxist Historian]

Comrades, the step foward for the class struggle in the U.S. in the face of the capitalist offensive against the working class is to organize the working class a party to call its own, a Labor Party. The Labor Party would link its struggle to emancipate the working class with the most oppressed layers of society, including but not limited to the oppressed nationalities, women, and gays.

The working class identifies itself not as workers, but as Americans, who work just like the bankers do! The occupy model of "Spontaniety," is not effective, and attempting it again is counter productive. It's been wrecked by the Petit Bourgeois postmodernists who are divorced from the working class. A Labor Party, with the Unions at the core of it, is the only course that is possible for us to take if we wish to be successful at fighting back against the capitalists and the Bourgeois state. The Workers Party would bring the class struggle to the working class through actions on a scale unprecedented in the U.S.

One factor is enabling the capitalists to enforce Austerity. It isn't "American Apathy," or the myths that exist about "Socialism is alien to America." The one factor that is enabling the democrats to dismantle the movements is the Trade Union bureaucracy, run by Trumka. His position is against forming a Labor Party, for keeping the working class not mobilized, and in confusion, which allows his fat ass to sit as president of the AFL, and for his friends to keep their positions and salaries. He sold out the Unions in Wisonsin, and is also doing so in South Carolina, where the Transport unions are presently putting forward a call for the formation of a nation wide Labor Party. Advocates for a Labor Party are Enemies of the class traitor Trumka.

So whose with me? Tell me yay or nay!

Depends on what kind of a Labor Party you want.

Russia used to have a very good one, the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party. At least its majority faction was good, the Bolsheviks (which means majority btw.)

I'd like to see a party like that in America.

Although the name really wasn't very good, they changed it to Communist Party after a decade or so, a better name IMHO.

But if you want a totally reformist, pro-imperialist, white racist, immigrant-bashing male chauvinist Labor Party, like say the old Union Labor Party that ran San Francisco for a decade and got thrown out of office in 1907 when the entire ULP Board of Supervisors and the ULP Mayor too, Schmitz of the Musicians Union, got thrown in jail for taking bribes from businessmen, count me out.

For a really decent labor party in America, first we have to throw the Democratic Party lackeys running the unions into the ground out of office first. Till then, talking about a Labor Party in America is just a lot of hot air.

-M.H.-

[Geiseric]

Yes MH that's what I meant, like the RSDLP. I thought everybody got that.

[Leftsolidarity]

there will be no more resurgence of trade unions.

Oh really? Based on what almighty analysis?

[Die Neue Zeit]

So to anybody who disagrees with the prospect of a labor party, what is your alternative? A hundred sects of leftist intellectuals spread through the country, divorced from the actual working class?

Something like the United Left Alliance in Ireland. Something like the PSUV in Venezuela. Something like Die Linke in Germany. Something like the Parti de gauche in France. Something like SYRIZA early on in Greece. Something like the Socialist Party in the Netherlands. All these have one thing in common: they're not labour parties based on the politically useless, f****** trade unions!

[Rusty Shackleford]

Comrades, the step foward for the class struggle in the U.S. in the face of the capitalist offensive against the working class is to organize the working class a party to call its own, a Labor Party. The Labor Party would link its struggle to emancipate the working class with the most oppressed layers of society, including but not limited to the oppressed nationalities, women, and gays.

The working class identifies itself not as workers, but as Americans, who work just like the bankers do! The occupy model of "Spontaniety," is not effective, and attempting it again is counter productive. It's been wrecked by the Petit Bourgeois postmodernists who are divorced from the working class. A Labor Party, with the Unions at the core of it, is the only course that is possible for us to take if we wish to be successful at fighting back against the capitalists and the Bourgeois state. The Workers Party would bring the class struggle to the working class through actions on a scale unprecedented in the U.S.

One factor is enabling the capitalists to enforce Austerity. It isn't "American Apathy," or the myths that exist about "Socialism is alien to America." The one factor that is enabling the democrats to dismantle the movements is the Trade Union bureaucracy, run by Trumka. His position is against forming a Labor Party, for keeping the working class not mobilized, and in confusion, which allows his fat ass to sit as president of the AFL, and for his friends to keep their positions and salaries. He sold out the Unions in Wisonsin, and is also doing so in South Carolina, where the Transport unions are presently putting forward a call for the formation of a nation wide Labor Party. Advocates for a Labor Party are Enemies of the class traitor Trumka.

So whose with me? Tell me yay or nay!
Do you work(or have you), are you in a union?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Firstly, I'd like to say that, although I think this is a rubbish idea, and although I came down hard on Broody in another thread for this silly Labour Party idea, I think he should be commended for original thinking and having the balls to actually put a new (well, re-hashed) idea out there.

However, there are serious problems at the core of this idea. Instead of mounting a criticism, i'd like to pose a few questions to the OP:

1) Would this Labour Party be a mass party or a party of professional cadre?
2) If it's going to be a mass party of union members and the wider working class, how do you go about ensuring that it becomes a mass party and not just another sect? It seems to me as though union membership and union struggle is in terminal decline in the western world, and hasn't really played a serious part in the class struggle for at least a couple of decades, perhaps more.
3) What sort of organisation would this party have? Democratic centralism or what?
4) Would this party have a 'national' line peculiar to America? If so, how would you protect against nationalism? If not, how would you - realistically - differentiate from the Labour Parties already formed in the rest of the world that have done what all labour parties do: disintigrate.

Look, Broody, the main problem with your idea is that history has shown that Labour Parties are not revolutionary parties, for they have always been born out of the petty bourgeois, 'Fabian' elements of the trade union bureaucracy. The myth put about by some left-of-labour types in the UK that it's only New Labour that has abandoned the working class and that the likes of Hardie, Attlee and Bevan were proper pro-worker Socialists is nonsense. Labour Parties have, in general, always been reformist, with a non-worker class character, and very class collaborationist in their outlook, for example in times of war, recession/depression etc.

OP: don't take all this criticism personally, and don't just dig in your heels just because your idea is getting a lot of flak. There are a lot of good comrades on here and they're not critiquing your idea because of any personal reason, I think this idea can genuinely just be seen as dead in the water.

[Thirsty Crow]

For that to happen, unions need to be included, and play a central role in the party apparatus. There will be no working class movement without the unions, this has been proven by history. There can be no communist party without militant union organizers playing a part in it.
Just this brief note.
You should really take a look at the historical experience of militant struggles in, for example, Italy and France at the end of the 60's, and such a facile "verification" of your position ("proven by history") would fall apart. What I'm saying here is that, historically speaking, the function of unions shifted, it was transformed - to that of the auxiliary instruments (though this shouldn't be mistaken for "unimportant") of the ruling class and its endeavours to discipline the working class. We can probably agree that contemporary unions represent somewhat of a defense of workers' conditions and wages (and a big "somewhat" at that), but I think it is crucial to understand that no matter the formal acceptance of the "non-opportunist" progarm of such a Labour Party, the union bureaucracy would, most probably, still at decisive moments act as a bulwark against militant action.

But ironically, I agree that there will be no working class movement without the unions, but not for the reasons you probably have in mind. I don't think it is possible to avoid attempts at co-optation, and that's why any class-wide movement will probably be forced to devise ways to deal with the unions and proceed beyond the activities sanctioned by them and advocated by them.

Oh yes, and this.




For a really decent labor party in America, first we have to throw the Democratic Party lackeys running the unions into the ground out of office first. Till then, talking about a Labor Party in America is just a lot of hot air.

-M.H.-

To me, it seems that such an approach focuses primarily on individual persons. Really, the classic Trotskyist response to what I stated as the historical shift in the function of unions was to argue for correct leadership, implying personnel change.

I think this is wrong since it fails to note the institutional position and function of the union apparatuses. That's something that can account for bewildered accusations of "betrayal", but in reality this betrayal was no such thing, or it maybe was but from a specific perspective, and that is again the personal perspective of the integrity of revolutionaries and labour leaders. I find it foolish to rely on such matters in such a scope.

This is not a matter of those damn lackeys, but of the concrete social practice that makes people such lackeys, and this includes the institutional position of the unions and its relation to, on one hand, the state, and on the other this specific party.

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

Marxists should fight within the unions, but this isn't enough. I think that the main problem with the unions is that when trade union consciousness reaches its peak, a pressing issue emerges regarding its "spontaneity". So long as a worker's party is not militant in its attempts to combat this spontaneity, bourgeois ideology will naturally take its place, given that it is the ruling ideology. Even Lenin noted that trade union consciousness is only the bourgeois consciousness of the working class. Maybe that would be a worthwhile starting point?

[Geiseric]

Do you work(or have you), are you in a union?

My entire familly are in unions and i've been surrounded by union members my whole life. I'm going to join local 6.

Also there isn't a "historic turn," that unions have taken. There have always been corrupt, racist, white based, and opportunist unions, since they were started. I don't need to go into how the white unions would discriminate against black workers, or how voted in leaderships are always prone to corruption, due to apathy among the workers, untill their paychecks are hurt, or they start becoming unemployed. However these malfunctions don't reflect the entire institution, as it is a standing example of at least workers identifying themselves as oppressed. If these organizations aren't around, you can kiss anything like a general strike goodbye. In times of crisis, union memberships are capible of shaking off the bureaucracy, if there's a minority of militants in the union who are capable of massing support.

[The_Red_Spark]

I think that Labor Unions in the US have long ago lost their strength and their militancy. This coincides with the widening gap in wage equality and also correlates with the death of the middle class. You can blame this on the leaders and their eagerness to accept reform or you can state a lot of other points too.

However I think that they are the only thing that helps the working class maintain a decent wage and offer the working man and woman an actual retirement they can count on reaching. This is a major plus for the working class but the propensity to accept this pacification and to lose interest in the political aspects of the class war makes this a poor vehicle for modern class struggle. It lacks the class consciousness that was present years ago and this is perhaps the core issue in American society. Establish a class conscious American working class and when material and historical conditions present their selves the status quo will change in the United Sates. Until then expect more of the same.

Most union workers I know are only union for the pay, benefits, and retirement and have little to zero interest in politics or class struggle for reasons stated above. They even take a position that is anti-socialist and have no idea of the history and Socialist link to the early unions. They are oblivious to anything that would make this a militant working class weapon for class war. Any attempt to radicalize it would be difficult at best and impossible at worst due to a certain complacency that seems to exist within them and a lack of class conscious militancy. They seek to work within the system, and with Capitalism as the economic model, and have no Socialist or revolutionary worldview or class consciousness worth mentioning.

Though this is the case, the fact that they are a mass organization of working men and women constructed predominately of proletariat working class people means that they could be brought over to the side of Socialist politics if their opportunist leadership saw that the bourgeois ship was sinking and thought a switch to another team would keep them in their positions of power, wealth, and influence. Other than that it would be the class struggle itself that would hit the switch so to speak, because it would not be possible to infiltrate or co-opt the unions in order to mobilize them. Either way I feel it will be material conditions, not a party apparatus, that will under the right historical circumstances bring the unions into the fray. They will play a role, but one that is secondary in the events to come. A party is incapable of mobilizing the unions and cannot co-opt the unions in order to make them a vehicle for change.

A vanguard party is necessary and one that is anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist, and internationalist in view. A new communist international is also needed but this is not tied to or related to a labor party. I think the agenda must be, and continue to be, to Organize, Educate, and Agitate. The means to do this are before us and we are not capitalizing on these opportunities the way that others have in Egypt and around the globe. This is a far more important issue that we must address.

[Geiseric]

Well it's going to happen, regardless of what any internet leftists think. I'm sure that when the recession comes back, and there's no force capible of obtaining votes and spreading information to the masses, you guys will regret being sectarians.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I don't think it'll happen, regardless of what any internet leftists think.

[Robocommie]

Like I said in the other thread, this is a tried and failed model, even on a compromise level: http://www.revleft.com/vb/lesser-two-evils-t172262/index.html

I do think we need to start looking at a coalition party though, and mobilize some involvement in bourgeois politics at a local or state level. I know that's reformism, but let's be honest here - the revolutionary situation in the US is so god-awful right now that even social democracy would be a step forward.

Naturally any kind of a popular front would, over time, lose focus and degenerate just like all the labour and socialist parties of the 19th and 20th centuries. But in the short term it might lead to some positive gains, and enable further radicalization later on. I really think it's at least worth talking to people about.

[Thirsty Crow]

It would, over time, lose focus and degenerate just like all the labour and socialist parties of the 19th and 20th centuries. But in the short term it might lead to some positive gains, and enable further radicalization later on. I really think it's at least worth talking to people about.
Can you expand on this, especially the bolded part?

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Why do people think there is a linear path for this? Social democracy is not a step forward, it's a completely different path. One that leads to demobilization and state integration. If you're looking to kill radicalism than you turn to social democracy, that's what it's been used for. Since there is no radicalism to begin with at the moment, then it's not even on the table so this is sort of a pointless conversation.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I do think we need to start looking at a coalition party though, and mobilize some involvement in bourgeois politics at a local or state level. I know that's reformism, but let's be honest here - the revolutionary situation in the US is so god-awful right now that even social democracy would be a step forward.

Naturally any kind of a popular front would, over time, lose focus and degenerate just like all the labour and socialist parties of the 19th and 20th centuries. But in the short term it might lead to some positive gains, and enable further radicalization later on. I really think it's at least worth talking to people about.

Comrade, I was posing two specific reformist models already. That thread was already about "bourgeois worker parties," and I was judging one against the other. The "organized labour" political formation based on the trade unions is way more stifling and parochial compared to the more left-populist political formation that is not based on the trade unions (but perhaps with support of individual trade unionists).

Bill Maher's progressive party suggestion is a far cry from the typical "organized labour" BS. For a Progressive Green Labor Party, guess which of those adjectives is and should be prioritized down the pecking order?

[Meanwhile, any "precariat" politics would be more aligned with the "progressive" adjective than the "labor" one.]

Left-populist front formations have always achieved more progress than any small-l labourite formations (that is, those based on narrow trade union interests).

[Q]

... A Labor Party, with the Unions at the core of it, is the only course that is possible for us to take if we wish to be successful at fighting back against the capitalists and the Bourgeois state...


Yes MH that's what I meant, like the RSDLP. I thought everybody got that.

I think the first quote just confused everyone then, since the RSDLP wasn't based on the trade unions "at its core" and neither was the German SPD on which the RSDLP was modeled.

Which party then is based on the trade unions for its political backing? Oh right, that was Labour in the UK (and several other anglo-saxon countries, mostly former UK colonies).

Now, I won't sneer about what kind of politics Labour is about. What I will mention is why we see this politics from Labour, because this is something that people who call for a (new) Labour party simply don't get for some reason.

Labour started back in 1900 as a political affiliate of the Liberals in the UK. The deal was simple: The Liberals support Labour on trade union questions, Labour supports the Liberals with everything else. This in itself should raise a red flag (and not the right kind of red flag either). This deal was possible because Labour represented and still represents the interests of the trade union bureaucracy which has every interest in maintaining capitalism as that creates the circumstances for their niche to exist and thrive.

Only in 1918 did Labour became a proper membership party, but note that this was just a few months after the Russian revolution. The reason for becoming a party and breaking with the liberals was a calculation by the trade union bureaucracy which had no interest at all in having a revolution...

So, was the Labour party ever socialist? No, most certainly not. It was and is an expression of the trade union bureaucracy. Now, this existing situation in the UK means that we as communists have to deal with it somehow. But calling for such a situation to be created is absolutely absurd and testifies a serious lack of understanding of what the Labour party or the trade union bureaucracy as a constituent part of the capitalist system are.

On an unrelated note: Congrats on your 4000th rep point DNZ ;)