What is a Labour Party ?

[billydan225]

So what is a Labour Party.Is it like a communist party?

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Generally speaking, most labor parties are formed when the unions of one country try to orginize for their common interests and pursue electoral politics. As Lenin explained, these unions only serve the interests of the union and the workers with in it without any regard to the wider class interests so they only possess a "trade union" consciousness that amounts to social democracy. In the centers of capitalism, these parties are home to the "labor aristocracy" which is the most privileged section of the working class that is by no means proletarian.

Lenin believed that labor and trade union parties were not a good model for the communist party because they attract those workers that are only proletarian by a technicality and are to all extent members of the bourgeois. He argued that the vanguard is the layer of the working class that is found outside of these parties that has, to quote Marx, "nothing to lose but it's chains". It is this vanguard that must form the revolutionary party and over throw capitalism, not the vanguard of two whinny middle class nerds and their pet dog.

[Red Enemy]

Most modern labour parties have less and less union and worker influence. This is especially truthful of those that grow in power.

The Canadian NDP, for example, became official opposition, and immediately talk of "modernizing" and "appealing to more people" became the line of the main of the party.

[Geiseric]

Generally speaking, most labor parties are formed when the unions of one country try to orginize for their common interests and pursue electoral politics. As Lenin explained, these unions only serve the interests of the union and the workers with in it without any regard to the wider class interests so they only possess a "trade union" consciousness that amounts to social democracy. In the centers of capitalism, these parties are home to the "labor aristocracy" which is the most privileged section of the working class that is by no means proletarian.

Lenin believed that labor and trade union parties were not a good model for the communist party because they attract those workers that are only proletarian by a technicality and are to all extent members of the bourgeois. He argued that the vanguard is the layer of the working class that is found outside of these parties that has, to quote Marx, "nothing to lose but it's chains". It is this vanguard that must form the revolutionary party and over throw capitalism, not the vanguard of two whinny middle class nerds and their pet dog.

you are incorrect, Lenin was in a labor party called the RSDLP. A labor party is a working class party, it can like you said have a bureucracy though, which may impose a bourgeois program, however it can also have a marxist/revolutionary program if the communists in the party can manage to lead it.

[subcp]

A specific form of organizing a social democratic party; but based on the trade unions initially (whereas in some countries the socialist movement gave birth to the trade unions, or they grew together). Lots of smaller socialist, democratic socialist, shop stewards, etc. organizations combined, affiliating to an overarching electoral organization (nationally based) for the purpose of advancing trade union and workers interest via parliamentary representation in the UK. Lenin's 'infantile disorder' pamphlet had a polemic against Sylvia Pankhurst/Worker's Dreadnought, who were intransigent communists and opposed to electoralism and the CPGB trying to affiliate to the Labour Party (something that was attempted and denied in the early 1920's). It all had to do with the 'united front' tactics, and somehow dialectically exposing the bankrupt leaders of the Labour Party as traitors to the working-class etc.

Militant, the Ted Grant-ists, remained in the Labour Party (under 'deep entrism') until like the 1970's.

The US had its own Labor Party at around the same time (after WWI)- it later merged with the Farmer's Party to become the Farmer-Labor Party; the early 2 CP's in the US (Communist Labor Party and Communist Party of America) were against affiliating at first as well. Then, in the 1990's, the "Labor Party" was reborn on the back of a lot of left-leaning trade union locals and progressive Democratic organizations. It has floundered, apparently only taking root in 1 state (South Carolina).

[Karl Renegade]

They are either reform socialists, social democrats, democratic socialists or sell-outs. Depends on what country.

[RebelDog]

Most 'Labour' Parties have taken on an orwellian existance. They call themselves labour parties but act against the interests of labour. Someone should found a capitalist party and serve the interests of the working class.

[Geiseric]

A specific form of organizing a social democratic party; but based on the trade unions initially (whereas in some countries the socialist movement gave birth to the trade unions, or they grew together). Lots of smaller socialist, democratic socialist, shop stewards, etc. organizations combined, affiliating to an overarching electoral organization (nationally based) for the purpose of advancing trade union and workers interest via parliamentary representation in the UK. Lenin's 'infantile disorder' pamphlet had a polemic against Sylvia Pankhurst/Worker's Dreadnought, who were intransigent communists and opposed to electoralism and the CPGB trying to affiliate to the Labour Party (something that was attempted and denied in the early 1920's). It all had to do with the 'united front' tactics, and somehow dialectically exposing the bankrupt leaders of the Labour Party as traitors to the working-class etc.

Militant, the Ted Grant-ists, remained in the Labour Party (under 'deep entrism') until like the 1970's.

The US had its own Labor Party at around the same time (after WWI)- it later merged with the Farmer's Party to become the Farmer-Labor Party; the early 2 CP's in the US (Communist Labor Party and Communist Party of America) were against affiliating at first as well. Then, in the 1990's, the "Labor Party" was reborn on the back of a lot of left-leaning trade union locals and progressive Democratic organizations. It has floundered, apparently only taking root in 1 state (South Carolina).

The CP-USA was a revolutionary labor party at one point. Then it degenerated and Browder had his go.

[Left Voice]

As well as the aforementioned facts that labour parties may not have the interests of the entire proletariat at heart, the vast majority of labour parties today are only labour-focuses in name.

One obvious example is the Labour Party in the UK who, while heavily funded by trade unions, have a diminishing influence over the actions and policy of the party. However, unions stay associated with the party because it is the only little political power they have.

I sympathise with trade unions because they nominally act on behalf of the workers, but the inherently have a tendency to be reformist because of this.

[Clarion]

The reformism of the Labour Parties is a reflection of the consciousness of the working class.

[billydan225]

Thanks for the help comrades

[Die Neue Zeit]

Then, in the 1990's, the "Labor Party" was reborn on the back of a lot of left-leaning trade union locals and progressive Democratic organizations. It has floundered, apparently only taking root in 1 state (South Carolina).

Thanks for the update on the United States Labor Party.

Yes, Labourism is based on trade unions advancing the narrow interests of its members.

[Ostrinski]

you are incorrect, Lenin was in a labor party called the RSDLP. A labor party is a working class party, it can like you said have a bureucracy though, which may impose a bourgeois program, however it can also have a marxist/revolutionary program if the communists in the party can manage to lead it.The RSDLP was not a labor party just because it had the word labor in it, it was just a standard social-democratic party with a more radically inclined breakaway.

It was not built on top of union bureaucracies or organized labor federations. I think you're misunderstanding what a labor party is.

[Vanguard1917]

Yes, Labourism is based on trade unions advancing the narrow interests of its members.

More accurately, labourism was the trade-union bureaucracy organised politically.


The reformism of the Labour Parties is a reflection of the consciousness of the working class.

In one sense, it is. But the dominance of labourism in the workers' movement also served to contain class consciousness.

[subcp]

More accurately, labourism was the trade-union bureaucracy organised politically.Yes and no; isn't it fair to say that trade unionism at its 'best', militant and linked to the class, also produces influence in the transmission to the labour parties? I mean specifically examples like the left-labor influence in the left-wing of the Labour Party after the war to the 1970's, or the influence of the RMT and Crow today. I don't think you can separate bureaucracy from the trade union as if a different leadership would change much- for example, in the US, the very militant and class minded United Electrical Workers has a number of 'anti-bureaucratic' policies along with that militant history and contemporary activity, such as a part of their Constitution & By-Laws that say union officers shall never make more money than the average of the highest paid workers in the union (in their example it'd be journeymen electricians, $51,000 a year- compared to unions like UFCW with a president making three combined salaries for hundreds of thousands a year), a number of 'democratic' provisions about shop stewards and grievance handling and contract negotiation, and on top of all of that, they do not endorse political parties with PAC funds like all the other unions in the US: but the flip side to all of this, is that despite being more democratic, more militant, supposedly outside of being a political pawn, they act as unions always do, and in their press and public statements, back the Obama administration and Democratic Party 100% (and I incidentally carry a UE card for my job).

[Clarion]

In one sense, it is. But the dominance of labourism in the workers' movement also served to contain class consciousness.

No. This is one of the most blinding false assumptions of the far-left, that the problems in the politics of the Labour movement is the union bureaucracy/labour aristocracy/blairites/whatever betraying the working class. The reality is that there isn't a revoutionary working class that is being betraye or held back by its reformist leadership. Nether is the shift in the nature of the reformist politics from post-war social democracy to a lighter form of neo-liberalism such a betrayal, it's a consequence of the failings of that old nonsense and the lack of any clear alternative but the futile attempt of advancing their own interests within the existing system.

The far-left hasn't at all helpe in all this. Essentially all "alternatives" they offer amounting to, essentially, the failed Old Labour policies that they used to condemn as reformism (but dressed up in vaguely revolutionary slogans) or impossibillist phrase-mongering.

[Vanguard1917]

Yes and no; isn't it fair to say that trade unionism at its 'best', militant and linked to the class, also produces influence in the transmission to the labour parties? I mean specifically examples like the left-labor influence in the left-wing of the Labour Party after the war to the 1970's, or the influence of the RMT and Crow today.

Organised working class militancy could push the Labour Party only so far to the left, however - 'so far' as in 'very little'. As a parliamentary body, the British Labour Party's role was to blunt working class opposition and maintain capitalist rule, and it played this role at critical moments for British capitalism. You mentioned the postwar period, but that was a time when Labour ministers enforced wage restraints, maintained rationing and sent troops to break strikes. 'Left-Labour' heroes like Nye Bevan oversaw the deployment of tens of thousands of scabs to undermine industrial action by workers.


I don't think you can separate bureaucracy from the trade union as if a different leadership would change much

Why not? The question of union leadership was pivotal. Hence the socialist policy to democratise unions and dismantle their bureaucratic strata.

[Vanguard1917]

No. This is one of the most blinding false assumptions of the far-left, that the problems in the politics of the Labour movement is the union bureaucracy/labour aristocracy/blairites/whatever betraying the working class. The reality is that there isn't a revoutionary working class that is being betraye or held back by its reformist leadership.

There isn't a militant working class movement currently - which is why i used the past tense - but the twentieth century is very generously littered with examples of the Labour Party acting in the way i described.


Nether is the shift in the nature of the reformist politics from post-war social democracy to a lighter form of neo-liberalism such a betrayal, it's a consequence of the failings of that old nonsense and the lack of any clear alternative but the futile attempt of advancing their own interests within the existing system.

I basically agree with you there. There was no so-called golden age of Old Labourism, as rife as that fantasy is within the left in Britain and beyond.

[subcp]

Why not? The question of union leadership was pivotal. Hence the socialist policy to democratise unions and dismantle their bureaucratic strata.

I agree with your first part of the response, but I don't know how you get from there to the quoted bit above- the history of the 20th century is full of examples of socialist minded slates and candidates winning union elections, or forming new unions, that end up doing the same things as trade unions have always done. I don't think there is a possibility of dismantling bureaucracy in an organization that is structural-inherently bureaucratic- and in the event of socialist leadership, still stuck in the same role (at the shopfloor level up to the level of national politics). Why do you think the leadership should be captured by socialists/communists? Do you think it would alter the relationship with the Labour Party?

[Left Voice]

Things are also slightly confused on the ground because leaders of trade unions often also hold leadership or high-ranking positions in communist and socialist parties, and vice versa.