Click on the headline to link to a an online copy of Workers Action, an early labor-oriented newspaper of the International Communist League's Spartacist League/U.S. I am not familiar with the Riazanov Library as a source, although the choice of the name of a famous Russian Bolshevik intellectual, archivist, and early head of the Marx-Engels Institute there, as well as being a friend and , at various points a political confederate of the great Bolshevik leader, Leon Trotsky, sits well with me.
*******
Thanks to the Riazanov Library for their efforts in digitizing Workers Action. The works provided by the Riazanov Library are © copyrighted by the Riazanov Library in 2010 for the document formatting and editing as they appear here in their PDF format, on the ETOL. The actual content itself remains in the public domain pursuant to US and International copyright conventions.
*****
Markin comment on this series:
Obviously, for a Marxist, the question of working class political power is central to the possibilities for the main thrust of his or her politics- the quest for that socialist revolution that initiates the socialist reconstruction of society. But working class politics, no less than any other kinds of political expressions has to take an organization form, a disciplined organizational form in the end, but organization nevertheless. In that sense every Marxist worth his or her salt, from individual labor militants to leagues, tendencies, and whatever other formations are out there these days on the left, struggles to built a revolutionary labor party, a Bolshevik-style party.
Glaringly, in the United States there is no such party, nor even a politically independent reformist labor party, as exists in Great Britain. And no, the Democratic Party, imperialist commander-in-chief Obama's Democratic Party is not a labor party. Although plenty of people believe it is an adequate substitute, including some avowed socialists. But they are just flat-out wrong. This series is thus predicated on providing information about, analysis of, and acting as a spur to a close look at the history of the labor party question in America by those who have actually attempted to create one, or at to propagandize for one.
As usual, I will start this series with the work of the International Communist League/Spartacist League/U.S. as I have been mining their archival materials of late. I am most familiar with the history of their work on this question, although on this question the Socialist Workers Party's efforts runs a close second, especially in their revolutionary period. Lastly, and most importantly, I am comfortable starting with the ICL/SL efforts on the labor party question since after having reviewed in this space in previous series their G.I. work and youth work (Campus Spartacist and the Revolutionary Marxist Caucus Newsletter inside SDS) I noted that throughout their history they have consistently called for the creation of such a party in the various social arenas in which they have worked. Other organizational and independent efforts, most notably by the Socialist Workers Party and the American Communist Party will follow.
*******
Markin comment on this issue:
Obviously a propagandistic left-wing, pro-labor newspaper from 1969, driven by current events, is going to contain a lot of material now of just historic interest like the attempt by the Black Panthers to set up a caucus in the then huge and left-wing politically friendly (friendly workers that is) GM auto plant at Fremont, California. This could have been an important joining together of the race and class questions in a milieu where both issues were being hotly talked about by every ostensibly revolutionary organization on the Left Coast that had anything to say on either issue. It never really got off the ground for many reasons including many Panther mistakes once they got “off the streets” and into the factories.
The one section that still bears reading for today’s audience is the last article on, well, college campus trade unionism (white collar unionism, then not so important but today the leading edge of the organized labor movement) and the vital question of strategy around the question of calling a strike. Previously addressed was the question of honoring pickets lines, a hard- nosed point that every labor militant need to etch into his or her brain today- picket lines mean don’t cross. Here the question is essentially whether a wildcat strike should be called under certain circumstances. Either way no labor militant crosses the lines, period. Once again this says to me that we had better be getting a move on about the business of creating that revolutionary labor party-enough is enough. Break with the Democrats! Build a workers party that fights for our communist future.
*******
Thanks to the Riazanov Library for their efforts in digitizing Workers Action. The works provided by the Riazanov Library are © copyrighted by the Riazanov Library in 2010 for the document formatting and editing as they appear here in their PDF format, on the ETOL. The actual content itself remains in the public domain pursuant to US and International copyright conventions.
*****
Markin comment on this series:
Obviously, for a Marxist, the question of working class political power is central to the possibilities for the main thrust of his or her politics- the quest for that socialist revolution that initiates the socialist reconstruction of society. But working class politics, no less than any other kinds of political expressions has to take an organization form, a disciplined organizational form in the end, but organization nevertheless. In that sense every Marxist worth his or her salt, from individual labor militants to leagues, tendencies, and whatever other formations are out there these days on the left, struggles to built a revolutionary labor party, a Bolshevik-style party.
Glaringly, in the United States there is no such party, nor even a politically independent reformist labor party, as exists in Great Britain. And no, the Democratic Party, imperialist commander-in-chief Obama's Democratic Party is not a labor party. Although plenty of people believe it is an adequate substitute, including some avowed socialists. But they are just flat-out wrong. This series is thus predicated on providing information about, analysis of, and acting as a spur to a close look at the history of the labor party question in America by those who have actually attempted to create one, or at to propagandize for one.
As usual, I will start this series with the work of the International Communist League/Spartacist League/U.S. as I have been mining their archival materials of late. I am most familiar with the history of their work on this question, although on this question the Socialist Workers Party's efforts runs a close second, especially in their revolutionary period. Lastly, and most importantly, I am comfortable starting with the ICL/SL efforts on the labor party question since after having reviewed in this space in previous series their G.I. work and youth work (Campus Spartacist and the Revolutionary Marxist Caucus Newsletter inside SDS) I noted that throughout their history they have consistently called for the creation of such a party in the various social arenas in which they have worked. Other organizational and independent efforts, most notably by the Socialist Workers Party and the American Communist Party will follow.
*******
Markin comment on this issue:
Obviously a propagandistic left-wing, pro-labor newspaper from 1969, driven by current events, is going to contain a lot of material now of just historic interest like the attempt by the Black Panthers to set up a caucus in the then huge and left-wing politically friendly (friendly workers that is) GM auto plant at Fremont, California. This could have been an important joining together of the race and class questions in a milieu where both issues were being hotly talked about by every ostensibly revolutionary organization on the Left Coast that had anything to say on either issue. It never really got off the ground for many reasons including many Panther mistakes once they got “off the streets” and into the factories.
The one section that still bears reading for today’s audience is the last article on, well, college campus trade unionism (white collar unionism, then not so important but today the leading edge of the organized labor movement) and the vital question of strategy around the question of calling a strike. Previously addressed was the question of honoring pickets lines, a hard- nosed point that every labor militant need to etch into his or her brain today- picket lines mean don’t cross. Here the question is essentially whether a wildcat strike should be called under certain circumstances. Either way no labor militant crosses the lines, period. Once again this says to me that we had better be getting a move on about the business of creating that revolutionary labor party-enough is enough. Break with the Democrats! Build a workers party that fights for our communist future.
Ren- Some good points although I think you are off on Cannon. You are too influenced by Max Shachtman's hachet job on Cannon in the aftermath of the 1940 fight (and later). Think about who held the SWP, the revolutionary organization in this country in those days, together in the tough days of the early 1930s and 1950s. And it was not Shachtman on the latter. He was long gone to the right. Trotsky knew who he was dealing with, seriously dealing with, in Cannon, warts and all. Moreover Zinoviev was more than just a party hack even if he had feet of clay in the end. Someday Zinoviev will get some justice. Well below Lenin and Trostky but righteous during WWI when it counted and at other later points. I think embryo of the embryo for the labor party struggle is about right. More later, especially on this labor party question which I think we agree is the key organizational question in the U.S. in this period.
ReplyDelete