From The Pages Of Workers Vanguard-Those Who Labor Must Rule!(Quote of the Week)

Click on the headline to link to the International Communist League (ICL) website.

Workers Vanguard No. 989
28 October 2011

Those Who Labor Must Rule!(Quote of the Week)

Emerging in the first half of the 19th century as a mass independent workers movement, the British Chartists advanced revolutionary republican principles while leading the workers in class struggle. James Bronterre O’Brien, an Irish-born leader of the movement, gave voice to the need for the working class to fight in its own interests instead of begging its oppressors.

I hate long discussions and disquisitions upon the rights and privileges of the oppressed. I hate such arguments as go to prove that hawks should not prey upon doves; wolves on lambs; or the idlers of society upon the productive classes; I hate all appeals to the morality of monsters....

We have had enough of moral and learned strictures upon abstract rights and duties, which have left the respective parties in statu quo—the one plundering, the other being plundered....

My motto is...“What you take you may have.” I will not attempt to deal with the abstract question of right, but will proceed to show that it is POWER, solid, substantial POWER, that the millions must obtain and retain, if they would enjoy the produce of their own labour and the privileges of freemen.

—James Bronterre O’Brien (1837), quoted in Dorothy Thompson, The Chartists: Popular Politics in the Industrial Revolution (1984)

In Honor Of The 100th Anniversary Of The Founding of The Communist International-From The Archives- *Honor The 91st Anniversary Of The Russian Revolution- From Leon Trotsky's "The History Of The Russian Revolution"-"The October Insurrection"

Click on title to link to the Leon Trotsky Internet Archives version of Bolshevik chief insurrection organizer Leon Trotsky's Volume Three, Chapter 46, "The October Insurrection", from his seminal "The History Of The Russian Revolution"

On The Question Of the 2010 Elections And Civil War –A Very Short Note

Markin comment:

Chalk it up to my recent reading of Eric Foner’s The Fiery Trial: Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery for being on the scent of the civil war theme, okay. A couple of days ago I placed William Butler Yeats’ somewhat flowery and mystical Meditation In The Time Of Civil War as an entry in this space with a short commentary that the political air, in the wake of the 2010 elections in America had, at first bloom, that sense of foreboding that I felt in reading Foner’s book as the American Civil War hit Lincoln right in the face and that I also believe Yeats was feeling in the period of the Irish Civil War of the 1920s.

Needless to say, in the age of the Internet, or maybe just in the age of the cantankerousness of some of my political co-workers that little seemingly off-hand comment could not just settle into cyberspace oblivion. In any case they were “worried” that I had gone off the political deep end in my somewhat simply analogy and unspecified talk of civil war. And I have to agree, at least to the point that the civil war analogy might be overblown. But hear me out as I try to quickly run out one train of thought on the question.

Of course the history of American election cycles has produced all kinds of “waves” (the current favored media term of usage for these quick mood swings by the electorate that shows up, or doesn’t). The 2010 elections can be taken, and at some level should be taken, as just an extreme example of that voter fickleness and quirkiness and just move on. However, when one looks at some of the underlying data, and as importantly, the anecdotal evidence that is beginning to accumulate that drumbeat that has been getting increasingly louder over the past couple of years (even before Obama’s election) by the Tea Party elements and right-wing yahoos in pursuit of their central slogan “We want to take our country back,” should give those of us of the left cause for pause. The case for this Tea-ish phenomenon as a racial backlash has already been fairly well made. More importantly, this election was an in-your-face victory by the “haves”, mainly the rich and well-off but also refracted through the working class, or that part of the working class that is still working.

Now all of this can add up to a tempest in a tea pot (to carry on with the tea-ish symbolism) and the addition of a few million jobs fast could break the populist back of such a movement. But that is not likely, not soon anyway according to those who claim to know. And have a vested interest in knowing. That is the point where I am starting to smell just the faintest whiff of gun powder in the air. To put it in American civil war terms, since I am, seemingly, under the spell of that event I think that we are right now in a period somewhere analogous to the period just after the ugly and ultimately futile Compromise of 1850 where the two sided were feeling each other out and both sides, and I mean both sides, were unhappy with that compromise. Moreover, the more far-sighted on both sides knew where things were heading. And that is what we of the extra-parliamentary left should be doing, paying very close attention to which way the winds are shifting. And organizing, organizing like crazy around our central slogan of fighting for a workers party that fights for a workers government.

*From The Marxist Archives-Open Up The Corporate Books!!! Expropriate The Banks!!!

Click on title to link to the Leon Trotsky Internet Archive's version of "The Death Agony of Capitalism and the Tasks of the Fourth International", also known as "The Transitional Program" for the full scope of the what is necessary to replace this international capitalist system that is thwarting human progress and development, among many other sins.

Commentary

Here are some very pertinent sections of the Transitional Program developed in 1938 by Leon Trotsky and The Fourth International as a means of bridging the then current concerns of the day and the ultimate need for socialist solutions to solve the crisis of humankind. Sounds about right for today. For a look at all of the Transitional Program use the Trotsky Archive link and click to the year 1938. It is in that list about half way down.


“Business Secrets” and

Workers’ Control of Industry

Liberal capitalism, based upon competition and free trade, has completely receded into the past. Its successor, monopolistic capitalism not only does not mitigate the anarchy of the market, but on the contrary imparts to it a particularly convulsive character. The necessity of “controlling” economy, of placing state “guidance” over industry and of “planning” is today recognized – at least in words – by almost all current bourgeois and petty bourgeois tendencies, from fascist to Social Democratic. With the fascists, it is manly a question of “planned” plundering of the people for military purposes. The Social Democrats prepare to drain the ocean of anarchy with spoonfuls of bureaucratic “planning.” Engineers and professors write articles about “technocracy.” In their cowardly experiments in “regulation,” democratic governments run head-on into the invincible sabotage of big capital.

The actual relationship existing between the exploiters and the democratic “controllers” is best characterized by the fact that the gentlemen “reformers” stop short in pious trepidation before the threshold of the trusts and their business “secrets.” Here the principle of “non-interference” with business dominates. The accounts kept between the individual capitalist and society remain the secret of the capitalist: they are not the concern of society. The motivation offered for the principle of business “secrets” is ostensibly, as in the epoch of liberal capitalism, that of free competition.” In reality, the trusts keep no secrets from one another. The business secrets of the present epoch are part of a persistent plot of monopoly capitalism against the interests of society. Projects for limiting the autocracy of “economic royalists” will continue to be pathetic farces as long as private owners of the social means of production can hide from producers and consumers the machinations of exploitation, robbery and fraud. The abolition of “business secrets” is the first step toward actual control of industry.

Workers no less than capitalists have the right to know the “secrets” of the factory, of the trust, of the whole branch of industry, of the national economy as a whole. First and foremost, banks, heavy industry and centralized transport should be placed under an observation glass.

The immediate tasks of workers’ control should be to explain the debits and credits of society, beginning with individual business undertakings; to determine the actual share of the national income appropriated by individual capitalists and by the exploiters as a whole; to expose the behind-the-scenes deals and swindles of banks and trusts; finally, to reveal to all members of society that unconscionable squandering of human labor which is the result of capitalist anarchy and the naked pursuit of profits.

No office holder of the bourgeois state is in a position to carry out this work, no matter with how great authority one would wish to endow him. All the world was witness to the impotence of President Roosevelt and Premier Blum against the plottings of the “60” or “200 Families” of their respective nations. To break the resistance of the exploiters, the mass pressure of the proletariat is necessary. Only factory committees can bring about real control of production, calling in – as consultants but not as “technocrats” – specialists sincerely devoted to the people: accountants, statisticians, engineers, scientists, etc.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The struggle against unemployment is not to be considered without the calling for a broad and bold organization of public works. But public works can have a continuous and progressive significance for society, as for the unemployed themselves, only when they are made part of a general plan worked out to cover a considerable number of years. Within the framework of this plan, the workers would demand resumption, as public utilities, of work in private businesses closed as a result of the crisis. Workers’ control in such case: would be replaced by direct workers’ management.

The working out of even the most elementary economic plan – from the point of view of the exploited, not the exploiters – is impossible without workers’ control, that is, without the penetration of the workers’ eye into all open and concealed springs of capitalist economy. Committees representing individual business enterprises should meet at conference to choose corresponding committees of trusts, whole branches of industry, economic regions and finally, of national industry as a whole. Thus, workers’ control becomes a school for planned economy. On the basis of the experience of control, the proletariat will prepare itself for direct management of nationalized industry when the hour for that eventuality strikes.

To those capitalists, mainly of the lower and middle strata, who of their own accord sometimes offer to throw open their books to the workers – usually to demonstrate the necessity of lowering wages – the workers answer that they are not interested in the bookkeeping of individual bankrupts or semi-bankrupts but in the account ledgers of all exploiters as a whole. The workers cannot and do not wish to accommodate the level of their living conditions to the exigencies of individual capitalists, themselves victims of their own regime. The task is one of reorganizing the whole system of production and distribution on a more dignified and workable basis if the abolition of business secrets be a necessary condition to workers’ control, then control is the first step along the road to the socialist guidance of economy.

Expropriation of Separate Groups of Capitalists

The socialist program of expropriation, i.e., of political overthrow of the bourgeoisie and liquidation of its economic domination, should in no case during the present transitional period hinder us from advancing, when the occasion warrants, the demand for the expropriation of several key branches of industry vital for national existence or of the most parasitic group of the bourgeoisie.

Thus, in answer to the pathetic jeremiads of the gentlemen democrats anent the dictatorship of the “60 Families” of the United States or the “200 Families” of France, we counterpose the demand for the expropriation of those 60 or 200 feudalistic capitalist overlords.

In precisely the same way, we demand the expropriation of the corporations holding monopolies on war industries, railroads, the most important sources of raw materials, etc.

The difference between these demands and the muddleheaded reformist slogan of “nationalization” lies in the following: (1) we reject indemnification; (2) we warn the masses against demagogues of the People’s Front who, giving lip service to nationalization, remain in reality agents of capital; (3) we call upon the masses to rely only upon their own revolutionary strength; (4) we link up the question of expropriation with that of seizure of power by the workers and farmers.

The necessity of advancing the slogan of expropriation in the course of daily agitation in partial form, and not only in our propaganda in its more comprehensive aspects, is dictated by the fact that different branches of industry are on different levels of development, occupy a different place in the life of society, and pass through different stages of the class struggle. Only a general revolutionary upsurge of the proletariat can place the complete expropriation of the bourgeoisie on the order of the day. The task of transitional demands is to prepare the proletariat to solve this problem.

Expropriation of the Private Banks and
State-ization of the Credit System

Imperialism means the domination of finance capital. Side by side with the trusts and syndicates, and very frequently rising above them, the banks concentrate in their hands the actual command over the economy. In their structure the banks express in a concentrated form the entire structure of modern capital: they combine tendencies of monopoly with tendencies of anarchy. They organize the miracles of technology, giant enterprises, mighty trusts; and they also organize high prices, crises and unemployment. It is impossible to take a single serious step in the struggle against monopolistic despotism and capitalistic anarchy – which supplement one another in their work of destruction – if the commanding posts of banks are left in the hands of predatory capitalists. In order to create a unified system of investments and credits, along a rational plan corresponding to the interests of the entire people, it is necessary to merge all the banks into a single national institution. Only the expropriation of the private banks and the concentration of the entire credit system in the hands of the state will provide the latter with the necessary actual, i.e., material resources – and not merely paper and bureaucratic resources – for economic planning.

The expropriation of the banks in no case implies the expropriation of bank deposits. On the contrary, the single state bank will be able to create much more favorable conditions for the small depositors than could the private banks. In the same way, only the state bank can establish for farmers, tradesmen and small merchants conditions of favorable, that is, cheap credit. Even more important, however, is the circumstance that the entire economy – first and foremost large-scale industry and transport directed by a single financial staff, will serve the vital interests of the workers and all other toilers.

However, the state-ization of the banks will produce these favorable results only if the state power itself passes completely from the hands of the exploiters into the hands of the toilers.

From The Pages Of Workers Vanguard- On The Police Question- Drop All the Charges!-Know Your Enemy: NYPD Arrests Hundreds

Click on the headline to link to the International Communist League (ICL) website.

Workers Vanguard No. 988
14 October 2011
Drop All the Charges!

Know Your Enemy: NYPD Arrests Hundreds

The hundreds of “Occupy Wall Street” protesters trapped and arrested on the roadway of the Brooklyn Bridge on October 1 received a bitter lesson on the role of the police and the nature of the capitalist state, as did the young women whose pepper-spraying at pointblank range on September 24 drew international attention to the protests. If this was a first-time experience for many of the demonstrators, the arrest of black protester Hero Vincent called to mind the brutal treatment meted out to ghetto youth every day by the NYPD. In an interview with Democracy Now, Vincent recounted how four laughing officers yelled, “Stop resisting arrest” while kicking him in the stomach as he lay helpless on the ground. He now faces a trumped-up felony charge of assaulting a police officer. We demand: Drop all charges against the anti-Wall Street protesters!

Many protesters have bought the liberal organizers’ line that the “white shirt” commanders are the problem, while the “blue shirt” cops are themselves victims of Wall Street. Reinforcing this myth is the illusion that the cops who are beating and arresting protesters are just a few bad apples. In response to the September 24 police assault, an occupywallst.org statement calling for a march to NYPD headquarters bleated: “Let us also be clear that, when approached as individuals, members of the NYPD have expressed solidarity with our cause. It has been inspiring to receive this support.” On an October 5 march through Lower Manhattan, organizers led demonstrators in chanting, “Police, join us! They want your pensions, too!”

The cops are the hired guns of the capitalist class, “earning” their pay (and sweet retirement) by breaking strikes and terrorizing the ghettos and barrios to protect the interests of Wall Street. As revolutionary leader Leon Trotsky put it, “The worker who becomes a policeman in the service of the capitalist state, is a bourgeois cop, not a worker” (What Next?, January 1932). The pro-capitalist trade-union bureaucrats betray the interests of workers by organizing cops and security guards into the unions.

The nature of the police as guard dogs of capital is seen in any outbreak of class struggle. To punish the NYC Transport Workers Union for its 2005 strike, which for three days all but shut down the financial center of U.S. imperialism, the police dragged the union president off to jail. In the current vital struggle against union-busting in Longview, Washington, two International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) Local 21 officials sought to aid a 57-year-old grandmother whose rotator cuff was torn by the cops. The Local 21 leaders were hurled to the ground and cuffed, their eyes directly and repeatedly maced. Now they’re charged with assaulting the police! (See “Defend Longview ILWU Against Bosses’ Cops and Courts!” WV No. 987, 30 September.)

Police violence is systematically employed in enforcing black oppression, a cornerstone of American capitalism. Just one day after the arrests on the Brooklyn Bridge, police fired multiple rounds into 57-year-old Yvonne McNeal, killing the black homeless woman in front of the shelter where she lived. A protest statement by Queers for Economic Justice (QEJ) noted: “When police targeted largely white Occupy Wall Street protesters, they used pepper spray. When faced with a vulnerable woman of color, they chose to use lethal force as their first option.” McNeal was affiliated with QEJ, which marched on Wall Street in her honor.

The capitalist class gives the police a license to kill, and they exercise that license with impunity in New York City as elsewhere. Amadou Diallo was shot dead in the Bronx in 1999 by cops who fired 41 bullets into him; Sean Bell died in Queens in a hail of 50 NYPD bullets in 2006. In 2010, Luis Soto was gunned down when cops emptied their semiautomatics into a crowd of hundreds at a Harlem block party.

In a speech that polarized the Occupy Wall Street crowd on October 8, a member of the Spartacus Youth Club fought against deadly illusions in the police, declaring: “Cops defend the capitalist system. Blue shirt, white shirt, a cop is a cop! They are not workers!”

From The Pages Of Workers Vanguard-Kenya’s Independence Struggle in the 1950s-The Mau Mau Uprising Against British Imperialism

Click on the headline to link to the International Communist League (ICL) website.

Workers Vanguard No. 988
14 October 2011

Kenya’s Independence Struggle in the 1950s

The Mau Mau Uprising Against British Imperialism

The following article originally appeared in Workers Hammer No. 215 (Summer 2011), newspaper of the Spartacist League/Britain, section of the International Communist League.

In April four elderly black Kenyans appeared in the High Court in London seeking recognition of atrocities committed against them during British imperialism’s brutal colonial rule. The Kenyan claimants, Ndiku Mutua, Paulo Nzili, Wambugu Wa Nyingi and Jane Muthoni Mara, are survivors of the barbaric torture that was meted out to countless thousands of black Africans in detention camps between 1952 and 1961. Of the four claimants (a fifth died before the High Court hearing) Jane Mara was subjected to sexual abuse, one man was castrated and another was beaten unconscious during an atrocity in which eleven men were clubbed to death. British imperialism pillaged and exploited Kenya and used savage repression to crush the anti-colonial revolt known as the Mau Mau uprising.

The survivors are demanding that the British state take responsibility for their treatment in the camps and that the government pay around £2 million [$3.3 million], a trifling sum, into a welfare fund. With swinish racist arrogance, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) insists that Britain cannot be held responsible, and that any atrocities that may have been committed under colonial rule became the responsibility of the Kenyan government that took over at the time of independence in 1963. Furthermore, says the FCO, too much time has elapsed for the claims to be valid.

The High Court has yet to decide whether or not the case will proceed to trial. But if the British state had got its way, the evidence in this case would never have seen the light of day. Since independence, the former colonial overlords have kept a tight lid on the documentary record of repression in Kenya. Nonetheless, much effort by researchers and advocates for the survivors has resulted in a significant victory. In May the FCO was forced to hand over 300 boxes of files, some 17,000 pages, including material relating to the suppression of the Mau Mau revolt. The departing colonialists destroyed many of the files at independence and removed others, having “made a calculated decision not to hand over any of its colonial era files to the Kenyan government” (guardian.co.uk, 5 April). A letter dated 7 November 1967, issued under Harold Wilson’s Labour government, explains that the general practice at independence was not to hand over files that “might embarrass HMG [Her Majesty’s Government] or other governments” or members of the police or military forces (guardian.co.uk, 5 April).

The mass torture and imprisonment of Kenyans during the uprising has long been documented by historians. To this day, any attempt to expose the truth of what happened has been sharply contested by apologists for imperialism. Caroline Elkins, author of the book Britain’s Gulag: The Brutal End of Empire in Kenya (2005), who is an expert witness for the survivors in the current court case, noted that: “My book was resoundingly criticised at the time of its publication. Historian Andrew Roberts wrote that I had committed ‘blood libels against Britain’” (Guardian, 14 April). Elkins estimates that between 160,000 and 320,000 people were detained in camps and at least 100,000 killed. David Anderson, author of another major work, Histories of the Hanged: Britain’s Dirty War in Kenya and the End of the Empire (2005), documents 1,090 hangings of alleged Mau Mau. Mark Curtis in Web of Deceit (2003) estimates that 150,000 black Kenyans died as a result of British policy in this period.

The British capitalist rulers have carried out mass murder and torture on an immense scale, from the brutal occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq to the bombing of Libya today. Much of the wealth that laid the foundations of British capitalism was acquired from trade in African slaves. Brutal subjugation of the colonial world was part and parcel of imperialism’s drive to secure world markets, cheap labour and raw materials. From Kenya to Aden, Cyprus, Malaya, Nigeria and the Indian subcontinent, the globe is strewn with colonial victims of the British Empire’s pursuit of profits.

In Kenya the colonial rulers imprisoned in concentration camps a large proportion of the million and a half Kikuyu people, the country’s largest ethnic group. The Mau Mau rebellion was essentially a peasant-based revolt of the landless Kikuyu people against colonial rule that had dispossessed them of their lands, the basis of their existence. Although it was ultimately defeated, the uprising forced an end to colonial rule. In its terminal years, British rule consisted of naked state repression, culminating in an official “State of Emergency” lasting from 1952 to 1960. Arrayed against the Mau Mau was the armed might of the British colonialists combined with that of their Kenyan stooges, including the Home Guard and other forces. The colonial regime co-opted a layer of rich peasants composed of land-owning, educated Christians. These “loyalist” Kenyans included Kikuyu landowners who were deeply hostile to the landless Kikuyu masses and supported the British in suppressing them. This deep social polarisation within Kenyan society is key to understanding the independence struggle in Kenya and its outcome.

With independence in 1963 British imperialism was forced to relinquish direct rule over Kenya, just as it had been driven out of many of its other colonial holdings in Africa and Asia following World War II. Reverting to indirect domination, the imperialists now relied on the national bourgeoisie which in turn became more directly the oppressor of the masses. Nationalist leader Jomo Kenyatta, who had been locked up for supposed Mau Mau sympathies, was released from prison in 1961. He was correctly regarded by the imperialists as safe hands for maintaining their interests in the region. Kenyatta had denounced the Mau Mau and was regarded by the more militant leaders of the movement as a traitor to their goals of land and freedom, which indeed he was.

The national bourgeoisie that came to power in Kenya was incapable of resolving any of the fundamental problems forced on the Kenyan masses by imperialist subjugation—dire poverty, lack of education and all the attendant social and economic backwardness. The land-hungry peasants did not regain their lost lands; the plantations and large white-owned farms were not expropriated. The outcome of the Kenyan independence struggle confirms in the negative the programme of permanent revolution codified by Bolshevik leader Leon Trotsky, who with Lenin led the 1917 October Revolution in Russia. The Bolshevik Revolution established the dictatorship of the proletariat, expropriated the landlords and capitalists and granted land to the peasants. The programme of permanent revolution means that in the colonial and semi-colonial countries, the proletariat must draw behind it the millions of peasant poor to oust the colonial powers in a struggle for a socialist revolution against the local bourgeoisie. This requires a Leninist-Trotskyist party dedicated to international proletarian revolution both in the neo-colonial countries and in the imperialist centres.

Imperialist Subjugation of Kenya

Britain first laid claim to Kenya and other East African territory when Africa was carved up by the imperialist powers in the 1880s. The rapid expansion of the system of world trade fuelled competition between dominant capitalist powers to establish spheres of influence and to control land, raw materials, markets and sources of cheap labour. In contrast to Congo and South Africa, where the imperialists extracted enormous mineral wealth, British interest in Kenya was mainly strategic. To control access to the source of the Nile, the British built a railroad from Mombasa on the Indian Ocean coast to Lake Victoria in inland Kenya. Completed in 1901, the railway was financed by loans from the British government. The colonial overlords decided the loans would be repaid, and the cost of administering the colony would be met, through profitably farming the millions of acres of land through which the railway ran. To make this land productive, they brought in white settlers, mainly from Britain but also from South Africa, to produce cash crops.

The first British settlers arrived in 1902, lured by the British government’s promise of cheap land and unlimited cheap labour. Writer Colin Leys describes the rationale behind it thus: “The settlers would invest capital and produce crops; the railway would earn revenue by carrying them to the coast, and by carrying the imports inland they would earn abroad,” while “the government would finance its activities by levying tariffs on these imports.” The British capitalist rulers were determined to force the toiling black masses to bear the cost of imperialist domination over them. As Leys describes it:

“The highlands were ‘alienated’ to Europeans; that is, Europeans bought the land at nominal prices from the colonial administration. But at first they had neither the knowledge nor the capital to farm it very differently from the Africans on their land. They had not, moreover, come to Kenya to work as peasants. Their ‘farms’ were extremely large—an average of over 2,400 acres per ‘occupier’ in 1932. There was therefore only one solution, to make the Africans work for them. This the Africans had no reason to do, unless the Europeans had been willing to pay in wages more than Africans could earn from farming on their own account. But such wages would have meant little or no profit for the Europeans. Therefore Africans had to be compelled to work, partly by force, partly by taxation, and partly by preventing them from having access to enough land or profitable crops to enable them to pay taxes without working for wages.”

— Underdevelopment in Kenya (1975)

Roots of Nationalist Revolt

In order to claim the farmlands of the Central Highlands, part of the Great Rift Valley, the British slaughtered Kikuyus by the thousands. Many indigenous Kenyans driven off their lands were pushed onto “native reserves” set up by the colonial regime in 1915. These reserves were separated by ethnic grouping as part of reinforcing divisions among the Kenyans. As the population in the Kikuyu reserves grew and more British settlers seized the arable land, subsistence became even more difficult. The landless and impoverished black population was subjected to a system of racist laws regulating land, as well as a poll tax and a hut tax. There were also pass laws (kipande) like those in South Africa, prohibiting free movement including in the search for employment. Access to education for the poorest was nil; a small privileged layer was able to attend schools run by Christian churches.

The early British settlers were heavily drawn from the notoriously racist aristocracy. According to Robert Edgerton (Mau Mau, An African Crucible, 1990) “the Norfolk hotel, where they congregated when they visited Nairobi, quickly became known as the ‘House of Lords’” and “their goal was to recreate the Virginia plantocracy in which white gentlemen of breeding and leisure oversaw vast plantations worked by black men.” Sir Charles Eliot, the High Commissioner appointed to rule the East Africa Protectorate, as it was then known, proclaimed Kenya a “white man’s country.”

Outside the reserves other displaced Kikuyu became squatters on the white settlers’ farms in conditions akin to serfdom, raising their own livestock and crops for local sale in return for working the settler’s plantation. Beginning in 1925, with a surplus of available workers, the colonial government and settlers turned the screw on squatters. Rights of tenancy and to own livestock were cut back to the point where squatters laboured for the white farmers for below-subsistence wages. During the depression and World War II, forced labour was instituted to keep the settlers’ plantations functioning. By the mid-1940s there were over 200,000 registered squatters in the so-called White Highlands. With market prices for their produce set far below what the settlers earned for the same crop, the squatters were reduced to starvation conditions. Floggings by landlords were commonplace and squatters were evicted if they refused to sign new labour contracts on worse terms.

In the years leading up to the revolt the squatters were transformed from independent tenant-producers to rural, desperately impoverished wage labourers. Resistance among squatters took the form of illegal cultivation and sale of produce, mass refusal to sign new contracts and in some areas organised strikes. As described in a study by Frank Furedi, by the late 1940s, this resistance became “transformed into a militant wing of Kenyan nationalism.” The Mau Mau revolt was “the last stand of the Kikuyu squatter before his final destruction as an independent peasant producer” (The Mau Mau War in Perspective, 1989).

Although there were other ethnic groups among the squatter population, the Kikuyus were the most numerous and were subjected to special repressive measures. Pastoral groups such as the Nandi people, who included many police, were regarded by the colonialists as potential allies and largely exempted from the anti-squatter measures. By the late 1940s the movement of resistance among the squatters had linked up with resistance in the reserves and Kikuyu radicals in Nairobi.

Kenya’s agricultural resources—principally coffee, tea and sisal—were profitable cash crops grown for the export market. World War II led to increased British investment in mechanisation, resulting in vastly increased profits for the settlers while forcing more black labourers off the farms and onto the reserves, which were already unable to support their population. This fed the disparity between the landed elite and the desperate and landless masses among the black population. By 1948 the population of the colony comprised some 30,000 European settlers, 5.2 million indigenous black Africans, and 98,000 Asians who were brought in as cheap labour but were banned from owning arable land and composed a mercantile layer. The White Highlands—the best farmland in the colony—was in the hands of the white settlers, some 0.7 per cent of the population.

During WWII more than 75,000 black Kenyans joined the British Army and fought in the King’s African Rifles and other regiments in Africa, Asia and the Near East. But in contrast to white settlers who served in the British Army and were rewarded with land and low-interest loans, blacks returned to worse conditions than when they left. Many returning black soldiers were inspired by independence movements like those sweeping the Indian subcontinent. With no land, some gravitated to Nairobi where the scarcity of jobs and housing forced many into an urban lumpenproletariat. Amid mounting bitterness towards the colonial power for which they had risked their lives, landless war veterans formed an organisation called the Forty Group which would go on to play a key role in the Mau Mau.

Divisions Within African Nationalism

The Kikuyu Central Association (KCA) had been founded in 1924 in opposition to the theft of Kikuyu land and lack of education. Jomo Kenyatta, an educated Kikuyu who had spent some 16 years in Europe, was a leading member of the KCA at this time. On behalf of the KCA he went to London in 1929 to pressure the colonial government for better terms for the Kikuyu. But contrary to a perspective for independence, his programme was for “meaningful cooperation between the colonial state and his people” (Mau Mau and Kenya, Wunyabari Maloba, 1993). Kenyatta returned to Kenya in 1946 where he was widely revered as the Kikuyus’ leader, the “Burning Spear” who symbolised the growing anti-colonial sentiment among the black population. After the KCA was outlawed in 1941 the Kenya African Union (KAU) was formed in 1944. In 1947 Kenyatta became the leader of the KAU, nominally a nationalist party of all African ethnic groups but dominated by the Kikuyu. The KAU included some trade union militants; its leaders were educated and some had lived abroad. Its demands centred on better conditions for the black population under colonial rule. Although the KAU was for independence in principle it did not see this as attainable in the near future.

The organised working class was relatively weak, but was young and combative. The trade union component of the KAU leadership represented urban workers including government clerks, taxi drivers, shop workers and others. The African Workers Federation was formed by Chege Kibachia, who organised a strike of dockers—a potentially strategic workforce—in the port city of Mombasa. He was arrested in 1947 while fighting for a general strike in Nairobi and detained in a remote outpost for ten years. In 1949 the East African Trade Union Congress was formed by Fred Kubai, who was later imprisoned, and an Asian communist, Makhan Singh. This organisation was banned in 1950 and Singh was deported and held in a remote area near the Ethiopian border for eleven years.

By late 1947 evicted squatters had become frustrated at the lack of any gains through the gradualist methods of the KAU. Members of the KCA led a militant illegal society and began using the Kikuyu oath to cement unity in struggle. The Kikuyu fighters referred to themselves as the Land Freedom Army or “the movement” but came to be called Mau Mau. The colonial rulers seized on the oathing to demonise Mau Mau and to legitimise savage repression against the Kikuyu people. The Mau Mau became the vehicle for mass resistance to the eviction of squatters from white farms. The core of the guerrilla fighters, led by WWII veterans, trained and lived in the forests of the Aberdare Mountains and Mount Kenya. Their weaponry was sparse and they were barely fed and clothed—and then only due to the heroic efforts of sympathisers in the reserves.

It is impossible to overstate the extent of racist hysteria among the settlers and colonial government, which reverberated in the pages of the Daily Mail in Britain. Whole pseudoscientific theories were concocted about the “illness” particular to black Africans. Typical was the ranting of colonial secretary Oliver Lyttelton who wrote: “The Mau Mau oath is the most bestial, filthy, nauseating incantation which perverted minds can ever have brewed” (quoted in Mau Mau, An African Crucible).

The colonial state used widespread repression between 1950-52. However, the audacious daylight killing by Mau Mau of a prominent loyalist chief in October 1952 was seized on by the new colonial governor, Evelyn Baring, as a pretext for declaring a State of Emergency and letting loose a reign of terror by the security forces. Kenyatta and other KAU leaders were imprisoned and later convicted of masterminding Mau Mau in a sensationalised and rigged show trial.

The deep division between wealthy loyalist Kikuyu and the landless poor was brought home in the Lari massacre in March 1953. Lari, near the Aberdare forest not far from Nairobi, symbolised the dispossession of land once farmed by peasants and systematically stolen, much of it now in the hands of wealthy loyalists. Mau Mau fighters killed a major loyalist chief and some 97 others at Lari, indiscriminately targeting families, including many women and children. In retaliation, up to 400 Kikuyu were slaughtered by the government forces, including the Home Guard, which was a key military force alongside the British Army and the colonial forces. Eventually 71 people were hanged for the Lari killings. This episode sharply fed the racist frenzy among the settlers and in Britain and increased the polarisation among the Kikuyu people.

Under the State of Emergency the settlers, British Army and Home Guard were permitted to summarily execute anyone who failed to stop when ordered. Thousands of Kikuyu were shot on sight. The Kenya Regiment and Kenya Police Reserve, both made up of settlers, were notoriously brutal. However, many authors also stress the extreme brutality of the Home Guard, loyalists who often had personal scores to settle with their neighbours. And they were not few: there was in fact an aspect of civil war to the Mau Mau uprising, between those who had benefited from co-operation with colonialism and those who were dispossessed and recipients only of brutality and exploitation. There is a similarity to the French colonial war in Algeria that took place at the same time, in which the French imperialists killed a million people—over a tenth of the population. In both cases there was a colonial settler population and a large loyalist militia co-opted from among the indigenous population.

Virtually the entire population of one and a half million Kikuyu were rounded up and “screened” during the Emergency. In Nairobi, where the rebel command was based, the colonial forces carried out a devastating month-long siege in April 1954 known as Operation Anvil, in which all Kikuyu in the city were rounded up and up to 30,000 were taken away for further “interrogation.” Screenings were usually performed by loyalist Kikuyu who wore hoods to conceal their identities from people they had often known their entire lives. With a nod of the head, these stooges sent their neighbours to detention camps. The camps were part of a vast system of prisons, interrogation centres and torture outposts known as the “Pipeline.” This included over a hundred camps and prisons, not counting the camps run by individual loyalist chiefs and white settlers throughout the Rift Valley and central provinces. In the camps, jails and screening centres Kikuyu were starved, beaten and tortured until they “confessed.”

In 1954 the government began the “villagisation” policy of uprooting Kikuyu and resettling them in new villages—actually barbed wire-enclosed concentration camps under the control of the Home Guard and military. The villages the Kikuyu left behind were burned down and their livestock confiscated. The aim was to cut off the Mau Mau fighters’ supply lines by virtually imprisoning that part of the Kikuyu population not already in detention camps. Between June 1954 and October 1955, 1,077,500 Kikuyu were relocated to 854 “villages.” One survivor recounted to Caroline Elkins the treatment of the “villagers” by the Home Guard and British:

“Some people who had refused to confess were being put in sacks, one covering the lower part of their bodies while the other covered the upper part. Then petrol or paraffin would be poured over the sacks, and those in charge would order them to be lit. The people inside would die writhing in the flames. Many people were dying every day. And it was the people who refused to confess, even after all the bad things that were being done to them; they were always killed in order to instill fear into others who might think of concealing the truth.”

— The Brutal End of Empire in Kenya

By 1954-55, the colonial government undertook a programme of land consolidation called the Swynnerton Plan which anticipated the land settlement that would be agreed at independence. The plan aimed to reinforce class divisions, rewarding loyalists with large parcels of land, declaring: “Former government policy will be reversed and able, energetic or rich Africans will be able to acquire more land and bad or poor farmers less, creating a landed and a landless class. This is a normal step in the evolution of a country” (quoted in Underdevelopment in Kenya).

By late 1956 the guerrillas had been militarily defeated but mass detention and torture continued into 1959. That same year, public opinion in Britain turned sharply against colonial rule in Kenya when evidence came to light of a massacre in Hola camp, a particularly brutal detention centre for Mau Mau, in which eleven men were beaten to death in March.

Kenya achieved independence in an international context in which British imperialism had suffered profound decline following WWII and national independence struggles had forced an end to colonial rule in India and were raging throughout Africa. The war on the part of Britain, France, Germany, Japan and the United States was an interimperialist conflict in which the working people and oppressed masses had no side. The working class did however have a side in defence of the Soviet workers state. The Soviet Union was no longer the revolutionary workers state that it was under the leadership of Lenin and Trotsky, having undergone a political degeneration, beginning in 1923-24, under the bureaucratic caste led by Joseph Stalin. Nevertheless it remained a degenerated workers state until counterrevolution triumphed in 1991-92. It was the Soviet army’s victory over the imperialist armies of Nazi Germany that ended the carnage of WWII.

Following the war the imperialists ramped up their anti-Soviet Cold War and in the 1950s a central preoccupation of the colonial powers in Africa was to curtail the influence of the Soviet Union, which had provided support to nationalist movements, albeit within the framework of “peaceful co-existence” with imperialism. At the time, “anti-imperialist” rhetoric poured forth from bourgeois-nationalist leaders such as Kwame Nkrumah, leader of newly independent Ghana, and Patrice Lumumba in the former Belgian Congo, who was murdered by the CIA in 1961. In 1960 South African troops massacred 69 black activists at Sharpeville who were protesting the hated apartheid pass laws. The CIA worked with South African armed forces and in 1962 tipped them off to Nelson Mandela’s whereabouts, leading to his 27-year imprisonment.

Kenyatta: Henchman of Imperialism

In a 1957 speech then-British prime minister Harold Macmillan said, referring to the peoples of Africa, “if they are exposed to the full force of nationalism, it is up to us to see that they are steered away from Communism” (quoted in African Affairs, January 1970). Jomo Kenyatta was certainly an asset to the imperialists in that regard. When released from detention in August 1961 he was still widely revered by the masses and seen as the leader who would take Kenya to Uhuru (freedom). As the Kenyan writer Ngugi wa Thiong’o, who was imprisoned for his outspoken criticisms of the Kenyatta government, noted: “Looking at Kenyatta people tended to see what they wanted to see rather than what there was: petty bourgeois vacillations and opportunism” (quoted in Maloba, Mau Mau and Kenya).

Kenyatta preached “forgiveness” towards the murderous chiefs and Home Guard who had been the eager jailers and torturers of the Kikuyu masses, saying they were “all brothers and sisters and there should be no revenge.” He assured the European landowners their property rights were safe. He became the leader of the Kenya African National Union party, composed of mainly Kikuyu and Luo people, which saw itself as successor to the KAU and which was voted into government in 1963. Formal independence of Kenya was granted in December of that year.

With regard to the all-important question of land ownership, Kenyatta & Co. accepted a rotten deal which allowed for the rich Kikuyu to buy land from the white settlers, for which they could obtain loans from the British government. The large plantations and ranches owned by foreign capital were untouched. Needless to say the mass of peasants remained landless. Kenyatta and his cronies were prepared to give the white settlers everything; the black peasants received only continued poverty and repression. Mau Mau veterans who rejected the deal formed a new Kenya Land and Freedom Army demanding the return of stolen lands. The Kenyatta government cracked down on these fighters, sentencing them to long prison terms. As one of the former leaders of the radical wing of the KAU, B.M. Kaggia, commented bitterly: “We were struggling to regain our own lands which were stolen by the British colonial government. We were not fighting for the right to buy our own land” (East African Standard, 22 April 1965). Kenyatta turned to the police and army, just like the British who had detained him. A famous anecdote tells of a meeting two years after independence between president Kenyatta and former colonial governor Baring who was visiting. Baring said: “By the way, I was sitting at that actual desk when I signed your detention order twenty years ago.” Kenyatta replied: “If I had been in your shoes at the time I would have done exactly the same.”

Under capitalist rule, much of the wealth of the former colony continued to flow into the coffers of the erstwhile colonial masters. After independence Britain continued to dominate the economy in Kenya. The rising black bourgeoisie were at one with the propertied settlers in stifling the Asian entrepreneurs and ensuring racist economic policies and legislation discriminating against Asian-owned enterprise. Such policies culminated in the mass expulsion of Asians in 1967-68 in Kenya under so-called “Africanisation.” Soon after in Uganda, this same policy was carried out by Idi Amin to a particularly brutal degree.

The bourgeois nationalists who came to power in Kenya reinforced tribal divisions and upheld backward anti-woman practices. From the 1920s, the Kikuyu-based KCA was a vigorous defender of female genital mutilation (FGM). In response to a 1929 campaign waged by the Christian churches in Kenya in alliance with the educated elite against FGM, the KCA and Kenyatta defended FGM as part of “African culture,” thus condoning this retrograde and barbaric practice which is widespread today in parts of Africa, Asia and the Near East. There is nothing new in the British imperialist rulers hypocritically purporting to defend women’s rights in the colonial world—such as opposing suttee (immolation of widows) in India and the veil in the Islamic world—as a cynical ploy to dress up imperialist occupation as a “civilising mission.” While we fight every aspect of imperialist oppression, we vehemently oppose practices such as FGM, an especially brutal aspect of the oppression of women which maims them and means a lifetime of excruciating pain. (See “The Crime of Female Genital Mutilation,” Women and Revolution No. 41, Summer/Autumn 1992.)

For Permanent Revolution Throughout Africa

To this day Kenyan society is riven by murderous tribal and ethnic violence which is a legacy of colonial rule. At the time of Kenyatta’s death we wrote that the “Grand Old Man” of Kenya rose to the presidency as a Kikuyu tribalist. We added:

“An Oxford-educated elite may be at home in the capitals of Europe, but as soon as any serious social unrest breaks out, the underlying tribalism and other indices of backwardness are quickly bared. This is not merely a holdover from the past: imperialism actually intensified and formalized ethnic rivalries with its divide-and-rule policies. Today the same patterns are fostered by the requirements of maintaining a political base in an environment of massive poverty.”

— Workers Vanguard No. 214, 8 September 1978

A workers and peasants government in Kenya would expropriate the highly mechanised and capital-intensive large white-owned farms and transform them into modern large-scale collective and state farms. Councils of workers and rural toilers would decide on land distribution. A collectivised economy must be extended to neighbouring countries in the context of a socialist federation in sub-Saharan Africa.

The proletariat is the only class with the social power to bring the capitalist system to its knees and replace it with the dictatorship of the proletariat. The powerful South African proletariat is key to a revolutionary perspective in the whole region. Our comrades of Spartacist South Africa (SSA) fight to build a Leninist-Trotskyist party to lead the struggle for socialist revolution—for a black-centred workers government. Adequate housing for the millions in the townships, squatter camps and villages, electricity and water for the entire population, free quality education, the eradication of lobola (bride price) and other traditional patriarchal practices oppressive to women: these desperately needed measures require the socialist transformation of the economy and society under the dictatorship of the proletariat, fighting to promote socialist revolution throughout the African continent and worldwide. As a recent article written by the SSA said:

“As part of a socialist federation of Southern Africa, a black-centred workers government would fight to extend revolution to the imperialist centres of the U.S., West Europe and Japan. It will take an international socialist planned economy to lift the urban and rural masses out of poverty and create a classless society of material abundance—the beginning of a communist society. This is the essence of Trotsky’s theory of permanent revolution.”

— Workers Vanguard No. 964, 10 September 2010

From The Pages Of Workers Vanguard- The Necessity of Revolutionary Leadership

Click on the headline to link to the International Communist League (ICL) website.

The Necessity of Revolutionary Leadership

(Quote of the Week)

The ongoing world economic depression emphatically underscores the need to forge revolutionary workers parties to lead the proletariat to power and sweep away the capitalist system once and for all. This point was stressed in a document adopted at the 1961 Annual Conference of the Socialist Labour League in Britain that addressed capitalism's recurrent crises and imperialist rivalries and the upsurge of liberation movements in the colonial world. The document was endorsed by the Spartacist League’s forebears in the Revolutionary Tendency of the U.S. Socialist Workers Party.

Reformists and opportunists of all varieties echo the spokesmen of the bourgeoisie in supposing, and hoping, that the separate manifestations of the fundamental world crisis can be taken one by one and separately remedied. Marxists claim that this is impossible. All such problems are related because of the inextricable connections between them established by imperialism itself. They do not assume, however, that imperialism will somehow collapse because the contradictions which it secretes will eventually bring the system to a halt. Such an idea of automatic downfall is no part of Marxism. The history of the last 40 years has driven home the lesson so often repeated by Lenin and Trotsky, that there are no impossible situations for the bourgeoisie. It survived the challenge of revolution and economic depression between the wars by resort to fascism. It survived the Second World War with the complicity of the Stalinist and Social Democratic leaderships—which ensured that the working class would not make a bid for power—and used the breathing space to elaborate new methods of rule and strengthen the economy. Even the most desperate situations can be overcome if only the active intervention of the workers as a class for themselves, with a party and leadership with a perspective of overthrowing capitalism, is not prepared in time.

—“The World Prospect for Socialism,” Labour Review (Winter 1961)

*The Boston Labor Day Rally/March- Labor Must Rule- Fight For A Workers Party

Click on the headline to link to a Boston Indy Media entry for the 2010 Boston Labor Day March and Rally.

In Honor Of The Anniversary Of The Paris Commune-From The Archives-From The Pages Of The Socialist Alternative Press-WikiLeaks: The case of Julian Assange

Click on the headline to link to the Socialist Alternative (CWI) website.

Markin comment:

I place some material in this space which may be of interest to the radical public that I do not necessarily agree with or support. Off hand, as I have mentioned before, I think it would be easier, infinitely easier, to fight for the socialist revolution straight up than some of the “remedies” provided by the commentators in these entries. But part of that struggle for the socialist revolution is to sort out the “real” stuff from the fluff as we struggle for that more just world that animates our efforts.
**********
WikiLeaks: The case of Julian Assange

Aug 27, 2012
By Per-Ake Westerlund, Rättvisepartiet Socialisterna (CWI Sweden)

Towards a new turn?

On the world stage, the case of Julian Assange is about U.S. imperialism’s need to punish WikiLeaks. There is no doubt that the Swedish state and the government would be happy to assist the US. However, the case is also about serious allegations of rape, which must be investigated.


Julian Assange was received as a hero when he came to Sweden, invited by the Christian organisation of Social Democrats in August 2010. Four months earlier, WikiLeaks released the video “Collateral Murder”, showing U.S. soldiers in a helicopter killing civilians in Iraq, including children. And in June of the same year came revelations about the U.S. war in Afghanistan, published by WikiLeaks in cooperation with leading newspapers like the New York Times and Le Monde.


When Assange left Sweden on 27 September, however, he was suspected of rape. First, he was arrested in absentia on 20 August. The following day the arrest was lifted. However, on 1 September the investigation resumed. In November, he was arrested in his absence and warrant was sought by Interpol, for one case of rape, two counts of sexual molestation and one case of duress. Just over two weeks later, he reported himself to the police in London.


Then, a more than a year and a half long process of extradition to Sweden began. The Swedish prosecutor, Marianne Ny, has requested his extradition, something Assange fought against, for fear that the next step to be extradited to the US. In June of this year, Assange went into the Ecuadorian Embassy in London and asked for asylum, which he was granted last week.


Julian Assange has every reason to fear US retaliation. Since May 2010, the US has detained Breanna (formerly known as Bradley) Manning, a 24-year-old who worked in the military intelligence in Iraq and was pointed out as one of the main sources of WikiLeaks. Manning risks life imprisonment, accused of “support for terrorists.” Several leading right-wing politicians in the United States have requested that Assange should be treated in the same way.


“In the US, the Justice Department is considering prosecuting the founder of Wikileaks for espionage, and according to the British Independent, there have been unofficial talks between officials from the US and Sweden on the prospects for the extradition of Assange. This story is rejected, however, by Foreign Minister Carl Bildt,” wrote the Swedish newspaper, Svenska Dagbladet, in December 2010.


Criticism of US imperialism is also what unites those who provide support for Assange. Ecaudor’s President, Rafael Correa, has been supported by the governments of Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua and Argentina for its decision to grant Assange asylum. All the governments in South America have condemned the possibility that Britain would plan an assault of Ecuador’s embassy.


Assange also turned directly to the United States in his 10-minute speech from the balcony of the Embassy of Ecuador on 19 August. To applause from the audience, he requested that the FBI investigation and the witch hunt against WikiLeaks cease.


But US imperialism’s hunt for Assange does not mean that he is innocent of the accusations by the two women in Sweden. “However, some of the activists associated with Occupy who have turned up outside the embassy have stressed their presence is about showing solidarity with Wikileaks rather than necessarily endorsing Assange.” reported the Guardian on Monday.


That the allegations made against Assange - intercourse with a sleeping woman and deliberately destroying a condom during intercourse – are classed as rape is used in both the international and Swedish debates as an argument that Swedish legislation is “feminist” or exaggerated.


But Sweden does not distinguish itself for its harshness against rapists. This tougher law is a result of women’s struggles, which in turn were supported the labour movement and the rest of society. This means that no means no and forced sex is a crime, which even those who believe that Assange is innocent should realise is progress.


Despite the tougher laws, very few accused men are convicted or even investigated. About 200 men are convicted of rape annually in Sweden compared to over 6,000 filings. Even in cases which are prosecuted, a third are acquitted. In this context, to speak of “state feminism”, as some supporters of Assange does, is absurd.


The Swedish Prosecution acted very clumsily and slowly in 2010. When the investigation was resumed, they had three weeks to interview Assange before he left the country, which they allowed him to do. Since then, prosecutors have refused to interrogate Assange in London, which would be a natural step for those who want to pursue the investigation.


Similarly, the Swedish government refused to promise that Assange would not be extradited to the United States. Such a promise would, according to Kristinn Hrafnsson from WikiLeaks in a comment after Assange’s speech, be “a way to break the current impasse.”


Socialists stand for the allegations of rape being investigated without the threat of deportation to the United States or other repressive measures against WikiLeaks.


WikiLeaks’ revelations about Iraq and Afghanistan have played an important positive role in the struggle against war and imperialism. Not least in Sweden. It confirmed Foreign Minister Carl Bildt’s warmongering role, as well as the government’s pressure on Iraq to stop refugees coming to Sweden. Socialists stand for Breanna Manning’s release and defend the democratic rights of Wikileaks and its sources. A democratic socialist mass movement must stand up for free speech, against violence against women, against war and imperialism.



Socialist Alternative, P.O. Box 45343, Seattle WA 98145
Phone: (206)526-7185
Comments? Suggestions for improving our web page? Please email info@SocialistAlternative.org

From The Pages Of The Socialist Alternative Press-What is the Alternative to Capitalism?

Click on the headline to link to the Socialist Alternative (CWI) website.

Markin comment:

I place some material in this space which may be of interest to the radical public that I do not necessarily agree with or support. Off hand, as I have mentioned before, I think it would be easier, infinitely easier, to fight for the socialist revolution straight up than some of the “remedies” provided by the commentators in these entries. But part of that struggle for the socialist revolution is to sort out the “real” stuff from the fluff as we struggle for that more just world that animates our efforts.
**********
What is the Alternative to Capitalism?

Aug 31, 2012
By Ty Moore

For a few months last year, Occupy Wall Street thrust anti-capitalist ideas back into mainstream discussion. Corporate media and capitalist politicians of both parties were forced to respond in defense of their system. By December, a Pew Poll recorded the growing rejection of the system; among young people aged 18-29 opposition to cap­italism rose to 47%, with only 46% in favor.

Yet a year later, the central question asked by millions of Occupy’s sympathiz­ers – and exploited by Occupy’s opponents – remains unanswered: “What are we fight­ing for?”


Unless movements for change squarely address this question, inviting a healthy debate over what kind of society we aim to create, we won’t move beyond endless protests against the status quo. It is one thing to tap popular rage at big business, but quite another to transform this anger into a mass movement capable of replacing the dictatorship of the 1% with a genuine democracy of the 99%.


History repeatedly demonstrates that the majority of working people will only be drawn into struggle when they are convinced that their efforts can bear tan­gible fruit – when they are inspired by a clear vision of how society could be run differently.


It should be no surprise, then, that the same December 2011 Pew Poll which found falling support for capitalism also showed that 49% of young people view socialism positively, with just 43% opposed. The poll doesn’t yet indicate mass support for a rounded-out socialist program, but it does demonstrate widespread desire for a clear left alternative to capitalism.


To mark the upcoming one-year anniver­sary of Occupy Wall Street, and to advance the debate over what kind of society we should be fighting for, Socialist Alternative will be organizing public meetings across the country to argue the case for socialism. This article previews some central themes we aim to address.


What is Socialism?


The defenders of capitalism attempt to paint socialism as a utopian schema dreamed up by self-appointed intellectuals who would dogmatically impose their grey, lifeless system on the unwilling masses. For many who associate socialism with the Stalinist legacy or the sellout social demo­cratic parties, there is an understandable desire to abandon the “old ideas” and start fresh.


Yet any serious look at the history of working peoples’ struggles reveals a funda­mentally different story.


Workers and oppressed people worldwide have repeatedly fought back to improve their conditions and liberate themselves. Everywhere, a central feature of the class struggle is a battle of ideas. The ruling minority attempt to shroud their exploitation through lies and distractions. Meanwhile, the exploited majority attempt to clear the fog and discover the real mechanics of the system which oppresses them, and what an alternative system might look like.


Arising organically from the experience of the class struggle, the genuine ideas of Marxism – initially worked out over 160 years ago – are a living body of ideas contin­uously developed by successive generations of class fighters. The history of capitalism reveals how social movements repeatedly face similar challenges and similar debates, and how the most far-thinking fighters draw similar conclusions. Marxist theory and practice flows from careful study of these international and historical experiences and from rigorous debates within these living struggles.


So while this article will mainly highlight our vision for a socialist future, most of the intellectual work of the socialist movement today and historically focuses on how social movements can win victories in the here and now. The best test of any theory is whether it offers an effective guide to action.


In the same way that a doctor who mis­diagnoses a patient will likely prescribe an ineffective or even harmful treatment, a movement leader who fails to understand the mechanics of capitalism will typically lead struggles to defeat.


Marxism is an attempt to scientifically trace out the actual dynamics of global capi­talism and the class struggle. Only through a lucid understanding of social processes, cleared of the fog of capitalist propaganda, can workers and the oppressed map out a strategy and tactics to defeat big business and transform society.


Genuine socialist theory is therefore a sort of “best practices” guide to win­ning short-term struggles, a transitional method of linking today’s movements to a broader global strategy to end capitalism, and a vision of a future society based on the experience of workers’ self-organization in struggle.


Workers’ Democracy


The 2012 U.S. elections show more clearly than ever that democracy under capitalism boils down to “one dollar, one vote.” Wall Street and the big corporations finance both parties, so whether the Democrats or Repub­licans win, the 99% loses. Yet corporate domination of our political system is just an extension of capitalists’ control over our economy.


Consider the awesome power concentrated in the hands of the few owners of the big corporations. Five companies dominate the U.S. media industry. A handful of corpora­tions, such as Google and Microsoft, control the information age industries.


The energy industry is monopolized by several fossil fuel profiteers who effectively prevent a shift to a renewable energy economy and better mass transit.


The overriding goal of these corpora­tions is not to produce quality TV programs, wider information access, or a sustainable energy policy; their goal is to maximize prof­its. Achieving this requires a relentless drive to cut costs and increase market share at the expense of all other considerations.


Apologists for capitalism reduce the prob­lem of corporate political domination of soci­ety to “corrupt” or “greedy” political leaders, or to the lack of sufficient regulations. This flips reality upside down. The capitalists’ dominant economic position affords them the power to determine the political leaders, the laws, and the ruling ideologies, not the other way around.


Socialists argue that only by placing the big banks and corporations into public owner­ship, under workers’ democratic control, can a genuine democracy of, by, and for the 99% be achieved.


This idea of working class self-organiza­tion was a feature of virtually every major mass uprising since the Paris Commune of 1871. The historic wave of revolt that swept the globe in 2011 was no exception. From the mass assemblies in Tahrir Square to the general assemblies of Occupy Wall Street, millions of workers and youth discovered that the forms of organization originally thrown up for their immediate struggle offered a glimpse of what a real bottom-up socialist democratic society might look like.


However, a genuine socialist transforma­tion of society would require the occupation movements to expand into workplaces, uni­versities, and all major institutions, replac­ing top-down capitalist control with elected workplace and community councils. Instead of elections every two or four years deter­mining which capitalist party runs things, a socialist government would be composed of elected representatives from workplace, com­munity, and student councils. Representatives would be immediately recallable and paid no more than those they represent.


In this way, the profit motive could be removed from society and the warped pri­orities of the market replaced with a global economic plan. All political and economic decisions could be made democratically, with social and environmental priorities determin­ing investments, wages and laws.


Ending Poverty and Inequality


Since the onset of the global economic crisis, capitalist politicians everywhere demand working people tighten their belts while they rake in record profits. In the “recovery” of 2010, the top 1% pocketed 93% of all economic gains, according to a study of tax returns by Emmanuel Saez and Thomas Pikkety. Meanwhile, the poorest 90% gained nothing.


“The past four years have been bad for workers and savers but good for the corporate sector,” explained The Economist (3/30/12). “Profit margins in America are higher than at any time in the past 65 years.”


Yet according to the Census Bureau, 46.2 million Americans have fallen below the pov­erty line, up by 7 million since 2008. Official poverty rates for blacks and Latinos hover around 37% while 34% of single mothers are poor, underscoring the deep racism and sexism in U.S. society.


What is truly staggering is the growth in those categorized as “low income.” The 97.3 million hovering just above poverty, together with those in poverty, equal almost half the U.S. population.


We face a distribution crisis, not a scarcity crisis. There are more than enough resources to ensure a decent life for all, but a tiny elite hoard the wealth or waste it in nonproductive speculative investments. To take one example, a recent study by the Tax Justice Network found that up to $20 trillion is being looted from national treasuries through offshore tax havens! This is a sum of money larger than the U.S. and Japanese economies combined!


Socialists argue for taking the top 500 cor­porations and financial institutions into public ownership and using their wealth to fund a massive green jobs program. On this basis, all the unemployed could be offered jobs at living wages on projects addressing vital social needs.


Tens of thousands of new teachers could be hired and crumbling schools rebuilt. Free, quality health care could be extended to everyone, unhindered by the rapacious insur­ance companies. Huge investments in clean energy infrastructure, including the dramatic expansion of mass transit, could accompany the phase-out of fossil fuel reliance. Free, quality child care, elderly care, and programs serving the disabled could be established.


On this basis, poverty could be rapidly wiped out, alongside the crime and social problems caused by widespread economic desperation.


Fighting Oppression


In the struggles against racism, sexism, homophobia, and other forms of oppression, few serious activists argue that any specific oppression can be understood - or fought - in isolation from capitalism as a whole. Despite this, most movement leaders fail to link anti-oppression struggles to a unifying socialist vision.


As Malcolm X argued, “you can’t have capitalism without racism,” because if the diverse American working class became con­scious of their collective interests, and their potential power, the rule of the 1% could be rapidly broken up.


That’s why the rich and big business con­tinue to fund far-right political forces like the Tea Party to further their divide-and-conquer agenda. That’s why the corporate media amplifies the voices of bigots and perpetuates racial and gender stereotypes.


There are also narrow economic incentives to maintain structural inequalities. Sexist ideas allow businesses to pay women just 73 cents to every dollar men make and to deny proper maternity and paternity benefits. Racism jus­tifies maintaining 12 million undocumented immigrants as a terrorized, super-exploited underclass.


A socialist transformation of society wouldn’t automatically erase deeply ingrained prejudices, but it would remove the most sig­nificant root cause. With workplaces under public ownership and democratic control, there would be no capitalist class with an inter­est in dividing workers from one another.


A socialist system would invest in commu­nities of color traditionally starved of quality schools, grocery stores, and social services. Homophobic laws and education curriculums could be removed. Women could be guaran­teed equal pay for equal work, free quality child care, paid maternity leave, and other necessities. The mass media, run democrati­cally under worker/community control, could be a powerful tool for undermining prejudice.


Sustainable World


In June, on the 20th anniversary of the first major summit on global warming, world lead­ers once again met in Rio de Janeiro. And, once again, the conference ended in failure, with all meaningful solutions blocked by the profit-driven interests of the world’s biggest economies.


Then, as if on cue, July was the hottest month on record in the Northern Hemisphere.


The scientific community is virtually unanimous that unless we drastically reduce consumption of fossil fuels in the next few years, catastrophic climate change is inevita­ble. Already the impact is being felt. Extreme weather is on the rise.


Droughts are causing crop failures across the world, driving up food prices, pushing millions more into hunger.


Yet both Obama and the Republicans are encouraging more drilling for oil, more frack­ing and more coal usage. No wonder, since capitalist politicians from both parties rely on the support of the huge energy corporations for their political careers. On a global scale, the cooperation needed to address the crisis is blocked by capitalist competition between nations.


Numerous studies show it is technically possible for a combination of wind, solar, tidal, and hydro power to meet world energy needs. With a democratically planned socialist economy, and the profit motive removed from global investment decisions, this transition could be achieved.


With the energy corporations placed into public ownership under democratic workers’ control, their massive resources could be redi­rected toward coordinated global investments in clean energy infrastructure. Tens of mil­lions of unemployed worldwide could be pro­vided jobs in an urgent, coordinated drive to save the planet.

Socialist Alternative, P.O. Box 45343, Seattle WA 98145
Phone: (206)526-7185
Comments? Suggestions for improving our web page? Please email info@SocialistAlternative.org

In Honor Of The Anniversary Of The Paris Commune-From The Archives-From The Pages Of The Socialist Alternative Press-One Year Since Occupy Shook the World

Click on the headline to link to the Socialist Alternative (CWI) website.

Markin comment:

I place some material in this space which may be of interest to the radical public that I do not necessarily agree with or support. Off hand, as I have mentioned before, I think it would be easier, infinitely easier, to fight for the socialist revolution straight up than some of the “remedies” provided by the commentators in these entries. But part of that struggle for the socialist revolution is to sort out the “real” stuff from the fluff as we struggle for that more just world that animates our efforts.

**********
One Year Since Occupy Shook the World

Sep 1, 2012
By Greg Beiter, Seattle Amalgamated Transit Union Local 587 Shop Steward

Only one year ago, the Occupy Wall Street movement began its encampment of Zucotti Park in New York City. A mere two weeks later, the movement exploded to hundreds of cities in every state across the U.S., spreading the struggle against massive wealth inequality in society.

A year later, despite the move­ment’s decline, it transformed con­sciousness among the broad mass of workers and young people. It brought tens of thousands into action, many for the first time, giving them a taste of their col­lective power.


Many lessons can be learned from the movement, from both its successes and its later decline. And though Occupy today isn’t a mass force in the streets, its early days last year foreshadowed the even bigger struggles that will emerge in the near future.


The Beginnings


Occupy Wall Street began as a small protest of a few hundred young people, who began an occu­pation a few blocks from Wall Street. It rapidly attracted the attention and support of many in New York and all over the U.S. The main message was simple, yet effective: The 1%, the super-rich who control the vast majority of wealth – and with it economic, social and political power – were getting even richer at the expense of the vast majority, the 99%.


This message resonated with workers and young people who had been battered by budget cuts, foreclosures, unemployment, and tuition hikes. It spoke to the brutal reality facing working people under the Great Recession and U.S. capitalism’s crisis.


Attraction to Occupy’s message quickly translated into active sup­port. Unions mobilized thousands of their members to Occupy Wall Street marches. After heavy-handed police repression, such as mass arrests and pepper-spraying of protesters, was broadcast to millions through YouTube videos, occupations sprouted up in sev­eral hundred cities, both in the U.S. and globally. After initially ignoring the movement, the cor­porate media was forced to cover what had become a mass force in society.


What most strikingly demon­strated the power of mass move­ments in changing consciousness was the effect that Occupy had in changing the political debate in the U.S.


Response to 1% Politicians


At the end of 2010, the Tea Party and Republicans rode into office on a wave of disillusionment with Obama and the Democratic major­ity in both Houses of Congress.


Emboldened by this victory, Tea Party politicians blamed pub­lic-sector workers and unions for the economic crisis and the budget deficits facing state governments. Democrats, who when in power were no better, considering they also attacked state workers and social programs, put up little resistance. Under this right-wing ideological onslaught, which was essentially unchallenged by the Democrats and corporate media, public-sector workers became the scapegoats.


Nobody epitomized this more than Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker. He led the charge in trying to not only to attack public-sector unions, but to smash them out­right. In February 2011, Walker proposed legislation to strip col­lective bargaining rights from teachers and other state workers. This unleashed a tidal wave of protests and a month-long occu­pation of the state Capitol. Walker was only able to ram his rotten bill through the Republican-controlled legislature after union leaders demobilized the struggle. Walker’s victory emboldened other Repub­lican governors in Ohio, Michigan and Indiana to push through simi­lar legislation.


The Tea Party/right-wing mes­sage that public-sector workers and unions were to blame per­sisted unchallenged – until the emergence of Occupy. Occupy rapidly relegated this reactionary scapegoating to the trash heap. The blame was squarely placed where it belongs: on the Wall Street bank­sters and the billionaire investors who caused the crisis. Occupy was also able to mobilize into its ranks a number of union members, who saw little defense put up by their own leaders, and to organize suc­cessful actions like the Oakland general strike in November and the West Coast port shutdown in December.


The movement also earned massive public support. In numer­ous polls, a large majority of the public agreed with the movement’s message. And the hundreds of encampments in parks and city halls were a visible daily reminder that the super rich were getting even richer off of all of us.


Weakness and Decline


Unfortunately, Occupy also had weaknesses that helped lead to its decline. Many in the move­ment rejected having demands and statements of what it stood for. So, other than the overall message of “We Are the 99%,” the movement didn’t publicly demand an end to budget cuts or wars, or taxing Wall Street and the rich.


Despite the movement’s enor­mous public support, the number of people actively involved in it was relatively small. Tens of millions passively supported it, but only around tens of thousands regularly came out to its marches, encamp­ments and general assemblies.


Having clear demands that spoke to the daily struggles of working people and youth would’ve helped mobilize more into action. But having a plan of action for the struggle would have also drawn more into the movement.


Occupy became overly focused on maintaining the protest encampments in the face of threats and attempts to disperse them from police and politicians. The struggle came to revolve around the occupations as an example of the type of society the movement wanted to build. Many activists thought that these could become examples that would be emulated, transforming capitalist exploita­tion into a more egalitarian soci­ety. But this insular vision, after not attracting mass numbers in defense of the occupations, was in most cases violently dispersed by the forces of the capitalist state.


Rather than calling on the public to join their model microcosm of a better society, Occupy could have better marshaled people into action by organizing an escalating series of actions around a clear set of demands. For example, during the height of the movement actions were organized protesting the big banks, which included occupying and shutting them down. But most of these protests were symbolic, one-off events, with no demands being put on the banks.


These actions – and the move­ment as a whole – could have more effectively drawn support­ers into the struggle by placing a set of demands on the banks at the initial actions. Halting fore­closures, paying proper taxes, or ending executive bonuses are a few examples. If – and most likely, when – the banks didn’t meet those demands, the movement could have then organized a series of escalating public actions until the banks gave in.


Publicly calling attention to the intransigence of banks, exploit­ative corporations, or politicians in ignoring the movement’s demands and continuing their unjust activities can often spring more people into action. Winning victo­ries, making our target buckle and meet some of our demands, can have the same effect. It shows that organized, mass pressure has the power to force change.


Lasting Imprint


Despite Occupy having declined as an active, mass movement, it has left a lasting imprint on U.S. consciousness. Tens of millions now recognize that they’re being exploited by corporate America and the rich. This will lay the foundations on which future mass movements will be built.


Occupy also trained tens of thousands of activists in the heat of struggle. Many of these activists will question why the movement wasn’t able to force fundamental change. They will learn from their experience and be at the forefront of building future struggles.


Even now, Occupy hasn’t com­pletely disappeared. Sections have reorganized around specific attacks: the Occupy Homes move­ment against foreclosures in Min­neapolis and other cities, for exam­ple. This campaign has successfully prevented several families from being kicked out of their homes by the banks. It provides an excel­lent model of the targeted demands and actions that can achieve the victories necessary to increase the power of the movement and draw more people in.


Likewise, student movements are emerging across the country against tuition hikes and student debt.


Fundamentally, the conditions that gave rise to Occupy haven’t gone away. U.S. capitalism is still in crisis and will be for some time. The living standards of working and young people will continually be under attack. If the economy moves back into recession, these attacks will only intensify. These assaults will again provoke out­breaks of mass struggle in the near future.

Socialist Alternative, P.O. Box 45343, Seattle WA 98145
Phone: (206)526-7185
Comments? Suggestions for improving our web page? Please email info@SocialistAlternative.org

In Honor Of The Anniversary Of The Paris Commune-From The Archives-The Struggle For The Labor Party In The United States- 1930s American Socialist Workers Party Leader Max Shachtman-The Problem of the Labor Party (1935)

The Struggle For The Labor Party In The United States- 1930s American Socialist Workers Party Leader Max Shachtman-The Problem of the Labor Party (1935)

A link to the Max Shachtman Internet Archives online copy of The Problem of the Labor Party


http://www.marxists.org/archive/shachtma/1935/03/labparty.htm


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 run 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 article:

Max Shachtman knew how to "speak" Marxism back in the 1930s and believe it. Later he could speak that language only at Sunday picnics and the like as he drifted back into the warm embrace of American imperialism.

The Struggle For The Labor Party In The United States- American Socialist Workers Party Leader James P.Cannon-Early Years of the American Communist Movement-Origins of the Labor Party Policy

Click on the headline to link to a James P. Cannon Internet Archives online copy of Early Years of the American Communist Movement-Origins of the Labor Party Policy

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 run 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.

In Honor Of The King Of The Folk-Singing Hard-Living Hobos The Late Utah Phillips -From The Archives- The Struggle For The Labor Party In The United States- American Socialist Workers Party Leader (And Old Wobblie) James P.Cannon-The I.W.W. ( Industrial Workers Of The World-Wobblies)(1955)

Click on the headline to link to a James P. Cannon Internet Archives online copy of The I.W.W. ( Industrial Workers Of The World-Wobblies)(1955)

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 run 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.

In Honor Of The Anniversary Of The Paris Commune-From The Archives-From The Archives Of The Socialist Alternative Press-Articles on the US Labor Party (1997-2002)

Click on the headline to link to the Socialist Alternative (CWI) website.

Markin comment:

I place some material in this space which may be of interest to the radical public that I do not necessarily agree with or support. Off hand, as I have mentioned before, I think it would be easier, infinitely easier, to fight for the socialist revolution straight up than some of the “remedies” provided by the commentators in these entries. But part of that struggle for the socialist revolution is to sort out the “real” stuff from the fluff as we struggle for that more just world that animates our efforts.
*********
Articles on the US Labor Party

1. Q&A on the Labor Party page 2
Justice #1, September 1997

2. Ohio State Labor Party Founding Conference page 3
By Philip Locker
Justice #2, October 1997

3. New York State Labor Party Says “Let’s Run Candidates” page 6
By Sean Sweeney
Justice #4, December 1997-January 1998

4. Pittsburgh Convention of the Labor Party page 9
Justice #13, November 1998

5. Becoming Electoral: The Best Way to Build the Labor Party page 13
By Ramy Khalil
Justice #13, November 1998

6. NY Metro Chapter Elections Marred by Fraud page 15
By Alan Jones
Justice #19, March-April 2000

7. How NOT to Build the Labor Party page 20
By Alan Jones
Justice #20, June-July 2000

8. Why the Labor Party Should Support Nader page 24
By Philip Locker
Justice #21, September-October 2000

9. The Fight for a Workers’ Party Continues page 28
By Ramy Khalil
Justice #30, June-August 2002

Q&A on the Labor Party
Justice #1, September 1997

Q: What is the Labor Party?

A: The Labor Party was formed in June 1996. Backed by ten labor unions and hundreds of endorsing and affiliating 300 other labor bodies, the Party stands for a constitutional right to a job at a living wage (not less than $10 per hr.), free education, universal health care, and an end to bigotry and discrimination.

Q: Do I have to be in a union to be involved in the Labor Party?

A: No. The Labor Party is for all working class people, whether you are in a union or not. The Party is based on the unions because that’s where the workers are presently organized. Also, the unions are part of the AFL-CIO which still gives millions of dollars to the Democratic Party. The Labor Party is trying to get the unions to commit their resources to the Labor Party instead.

Q: Can I vote for the Labor Party?

A: Not yet. The Labor Party is not running any candidates until 1999 at the earliest. The Labor Party’s leaders feel that the Party needs to be much stronger before it can start to run for office. Many Party members, however, feel that running candidates in carefully selected and well-prepared campaigns is a good way of reaching new people and training the troops for actions.

Q: What’s JUSTICE got to do with the Labor Party? Why do we need both?

A: Supporters of JUSTICE helped create the Labor Party and now we are trying to turn it into a real force. We feel that the Labor Party can become a major player in U.S. politics, a party that fights for us and alongside us. We urge our readers to join us in the struggle.

We also feel that the Labor Party should run candidates sooner rather than later.

As socialists, we firmly believe that the things the Labor Party is trying to achieve—such as good-paying jobs for all—will require an economy that is completely different from the capitalist economy we have now. Also, the large banks and major corporations are doing great by this system, and they will fight like hell to keep things going their way. JUSTICE is working with other socialists and activists in the Labor Party who feel that the system can’t just be made worker-friendly by passing a few laws. If elected, the Party will need to replace capitalism with a system based on democratic control of the economy by working people.

Ohio State Labor Party Founding Conference
By Philip Locker, Cleveland LP Chapter, Delegate
Justice #2, October 1997

On Saturday September 20th, 1997 history was made. Delegates representing several unions and community chapters in Cleveland and Toledo founded the Ohio State Labor Party (OSLP). In the relatively short time span of seven hours, we hammered out state by-laws, established an organizing plan, and debated political resolutions.

The impressive team of speakers included John Ryan, Cleveland AFL-CIO Executive Secretary, Baldemar Velasquez, Farm Labor Organizing Committee President, Ed Bruno, Labor Party New England Regional Director, and Bill Burga, Ohio AFL-CIO President. Labor bodies with delegations included the Cleveland AFL-CIO, GCIU locals 15N & 546M, CWA local 4340, Bakers Union Local 19, AFSCME local 3360, FLOC, UE District Council 7 and several more. The two OSLP community chapters, Cleveland and Toledo, also participated. In addition many individuals attended as observers or as at-large delegates, coming from all over the state.

Nearly seventy people attended the Convention. With such a large number of union affiliations there could have been many more. Unfortunately, while many union leaders have officially endorsed the LP, they do not build the LP on the ground, including campaigning among their own members. In contrast, supporters of Justice mobilized 14 people. Incredibly, these were the only young people at the convention.

Lively Debate

The debate centered around two issues. Labor activist Mike Ferner, who several years ago ran a serious campaign for mayor of Toledo against the Democrats and Republicans on a union ticket, submitted a resolution calling for further discussion and debate in the Labor Party about the proper role of corporations in a democracy. Delegates spoke in favor of the resolution, adding that we must examine the complete undemocratic nature of our economy, the incredible economic power concentrated in the hands of a few big businesses to make economic decision that effect millions of working people. The idea was further raised that the LP must begin to ask if this is a systemic product of our economic system, capitalism, and whether this system works in the interest of workers. The issue of an economic alternative to the market was raised. What would be the Labor Party’s response if it took power and capital “went on strike”?

Supporters of Justice advocate the necessity of public ownership of the leading 500 big corporations that dominate the economy and putting them under democratic workers control and management. These points were received in a very friendly tone, and it was agreed to examine the issue further.

The main area of debate concerned the LP’s electoral strategy. Delegates Jerry Gordon and Barbara Walden submitted a resolution stating the LP’s current and future commitment never to endorse or support any candidate of either big business party, Democrat or Republican, which easily passed. More controversial was another resolution, which stated that the OSLP urges the upcoming second national LP convention to adopt a viable electoral strategy around clear political, organizational, and legal criteria, of running independent LP candidates where we have sufficient resources and support, as a critical way to educate workers, publicize the LP program and build the LP. This sparked a fierce debate lasting 45 minutes. Many speakers spoke passionately for and against, with both sides receiving loud applause. All agreed it was the most memorable part of the convention.

The question of electoral strategy only poses the more fundamental question of how do we build the LP? How can the LP become a party of several hundred thousand members? Supporters of the resolution argued that, like the 28th Amendment Campaign, an electoral strategy must be seen as a party-building tool, and not judged on if we gain an immediate victory (either winning the 28th amendment or being elected).

The Need for an Electoral Strategy

Elections are the only platform with a large enough scope to build a party of several hundred thousand members. The current strategy is limited to a narrow field of trade-union activists. This layer now knows of the LP, and many have joined. How do we reach a wider layer? The only way is by standing in elections (in selected areas where we can run a serious campaign). This would open many doors: corporate media would publicize the LP and we could directly debate the candidates of big business and force them to address our program. Elections are a rare time in this country when most people are thinking about politics. Many will not consider us a real party unless we stand in elections. A small victory would be a tremendous encouragement and a concrete example to show to the labor movement.

The pro-electoral resolution was defeated, due to the union block votes (although in the voice vote, the delegates were evenly split). More importantly, the resolution forced this key issue to be discussed and debated. A surprising number of important LP activists voted for the resolution. Baldemar Velasquez, President of FLOC and National Co-chair of the LP supported the resolution. So did Mike Ferner, who originally was against the resolution, but was convinced in the course of the debate.

Many lessons can be learned to help other LP activists prepare for their state conventions. The state conventions should not take place merely to set up formal bodies and structures, but as levers to build the party on the ground. We must organize, mobilize, have public meetings, and bring car loads of activists and regular people to these events. State conventions are an excellent opportunity to start an intensive campaign to win affiliations of new local unions to the LP. They are a great forum for LP members to discuss the critical issues facing the LP.

Altogether, the convention was an excellent step forward. The foundation has been laid in Ohio for the LP to start getting down to the real business of building a mass party.

Supporters of this newspaper will continue to build the Labor Party. Socialists have a critical role to play in this process. We must be the best builders of the Labor Party in practice, and also raise the crucial—and critical—issues facing the Labor Party.

New York State Labor Party Says “Let’s Run Candidates”
By Sean Sweeney, Vice Chair, NY MetroChapter
Justice #4, December 1997-Jaunary 1998

As the early winter rain poured hard in the streets of Schenectady, little could dampen the spirits of the 120 delegates and observers who met in the Holiday Inn to launch the New York State Labor Party. After a lively but friendly debate, the New York gathering overwhelmingly passed resolution calling on the next full convention of the Labor Party, scheduled for Pittsburgh next November, to pursue “a viable electoral strategy” and to establish clear “organizational and political criteria” for running candidates. The Labor Party is presently non-electoral. The Schenectady vote offered a clear sign that this policy could be changed in Pittsburgh.

An Important Breakthrough

“This was an important breakthrough,” said health care worker Margaret Collins, “When I moved the resolution, I knew we would get support. The union delegates were mainly rank and filers. They understand that carefully planned electoral work can build the party and involve more people into our effort.”

Brought before the convention by the LP’s New York Metro Chapter, the pro-electoral resolution had called for an electoral strategy “independent of the parties of big business.” However, an amendment moved by a CWA local – and carried by a large margin – called for LP candidates to simply “be members of the Labor Party and uphold the Party’s program.” The debate revealed that some LP supporters would still like the option of endorsing Democrats or to involve the LP in fusion campaigns. Several delegates spoke against the idea of fusion with “progressive Democrats” a strategy that has shipwrecked the movement for independent working class political action before. “We’ll continue to fight against the fusion illusion,” said Teamster member El Jeer Hawkins from Harlem. “I joined the Labor Party because I want to put my efforts into building an alternative to big business politics. If there are any good Democrats left, they should get out of their rotten party and help us fight for economic and social justice.” Hawkins recently helped set up a LP committee in Harlem as part of the NY Metro Chapter.

Resolution Against Police Brutality

Another important resolution was moved by Larry Adams, President of Mailhandlers Local 300 calling for justice for Abner Louima and an end to police brutality. The resolution outlined the vicious, dehumanizing torture and sexual abuse against Louima, a Haitian immigrant, by the New York police and called for an end to police brutality.

Further, it demanded prosecution of the police personnel involved in or covering up the torture and called for the Labor Party to be involved in protests against police brutality with slogans like “An Injury to one is an Injury to all!”

The launch of the state body on November 7-9th attracted thirty union locals and a bunch of LP membership chapters from across the state. A five person state executive committee was elected, and the body adopted a seven-stage plan to build the LP in New York state. A UNITE official from New York City commented, “We were impressed. This was a first for us. I can see our local becoming much more involved in the future.”

Socialist Ideas Relevant Today

One of the high points of the Schenectady conference was the keynote speech made by Noel Beasley, a leading UNITE trade unionist from the Midwest. Beasley called on the Labor Party to remember the efforts of Eugene Debs, the great socialist leader, on behalf of the working class and explained how his ideas are relevant to the struggles of workers today. The fight to wrest control of government from the established political parties will be difficult, Beasley said. Moreover, “We have to create a culture of struggle where it is assumed we will fight, where it is expected we will fight and, most importantly, that we enjoy the fight.”

Many delegates commented on the open and democratic nature of the convention. In a week when the New York Central Labor Council and most of the City’s unions endorsed the re-election of Republican mayor Rudolph Giuliani, the launch of the New York State Labor Party came just at the right time. The new President of the New York LP, CWA 1180 President Arthur Cheliotes, is an outspoken critic of Giuliani. In a New York Chief Leader article covering the convention, Cheliotes commented, “I am more convinced than ever that this is a serious and viable effort… With the two major parties proving incapable of really representing working people’s needs, the facts are clear: labor needs a political voice, working people demand political representation, and labor activists confront the responsibility that flows from that.”

Beasley called on the Labor Party to remember the efforts of Eugene Debs, the great socialist leader, on behalf of the working class and explained how his ideas are relevant to the struggles of workers today.

Text of the Amended Resolution on Electoral Action

Whereas the founding convention of the National Labor Party decided that the Party would not run candidates for office during the first two years of its existence, and

Whereas the question of running candidates will again be considered by the Labor Party at its second national convention scheduled for October 1998, and

Whereas the founding convention of the NY Labor Party regards carefully planned electoral campaigns to be critical way to educate workers publicize the party program and build the party, and

Whereas the Labor Party has established an Electoral Strategy Committee to explore the electoral options facing the party,

Therefore be it resolved that the (founding_ convention of the NY Labor Party calls on the Electoral Committee to develop a viable electoral strategy for the Labor Party,

Be it further resolved that the Electoral Strategy Committee develop this strategy around clear political, organizational and legal criteria, and

Be it further resolved that this criteria requires that Labor Party candidates to be members of the Labor Party and uphold the Party’s program, and

Be it finally resolved that the NY Labor Party urges the upcoming second National Convention to debate and adopt a viable electoral strategy for the Labor Party.

Pittsburgh Convention of the Labor Party
The Challenge of Building a Political Alternative for Working People
Justice #13, November 1998

The June 1996 launch of the Labor Party in Cleveland was the culmination of years of work and preparation that stretched over the course of a decade. The launching of the party represented a response by a small section of the union movement to the 20-year impasse of the trade union leadership to deal with the offensive of big business on workers’ living standards and democratic rights, the further move of the Democratic Party to the right, the passing of NAFTA, privatization, and anti-union legislation.

It was a personal triumph for Tony Mazzocchi and a small army of trade unionists, rank and file as well as leadership, who resolutely stuck to the task of bringing a Labor Party into existence. The sight of 1400 delegates cheering the adoption of the Party’s Constitution remains an unforgettable experience for all those who took part in that important political event. At the time, we commented: “Working people now have an alternative political party, organized and funded by organized labor and other workers. Even though the party is still small and non-electoral, its formation represents an historic step toward the political independence of the working class.” (September 1996)

But after the joyous birth came the political equivalent of post-natal depression. At times, it seemed as if Cleveland had never happened. Many union officials around the Labor Party resumed their normal business, business that included committing resources to re-electing Democrats and, not infrequently, Republicans. It’s not that the Labor Party was low on the agenda; it seldom got on the agenda at all. As a result of the limited momentum in the unions, quite a number of Labor Party chapters slumped into virtual inactivity, as many activists got back into the regular struggle-to-struggle routine, perhaps wondering when “the Party” was going to happen, and why wasn’t somebody doing something to speed things up a little? In truth, there have been moments when even the most determined among us have wondered if the whole thing was just going nowhere. Over time it has become clear that a convention does not a party make, no magic formulas that meet the challenge of building a mass working class party in this country.

Pushing Forward

But as the second Convention of the Labor Party gets underway in Pittsburgh, it is evident that the spirit of Cleveland lives on. The Labor Party’s First Constitutional Convention has attracted the participation of considerably more unions than showed up for the founding convention, and a greater number of elected delegates, which is cause for optimism. As we go to press, 1,350 delegates have registered, a figure that reflects both the ongoing appeal of the Party and the tenacity and dogged determination of its active supporters. It’s also encouraging that many union locals are coming this time as affiliates to the Party, and not as simple endorsers. This fact alone reflects a growing degree of commitment to the process, although much work needs to be done to bring the Labor Party to the shop stewards and rank and file of these critical locals.

Unions are good at writing checks, and no doubt the Party could not function without this support, but what it needs is more active members.

Commitment to Action

But credit where credit is due. The union locals and internationals that have made it here to Pittsburgh to support the Labor Party are standing up for working class political independence, and their numbers are growing. We urge them not to forget about the Labor Party when the convention is over, but to take bold action. This means setting up organizing committees for the Party, helping local chapters with in-kind support, committing staff on building the Labor Party, and, above all, helping the Party get ready to contest for political office. Finally breaking with the Democrats and the Republicans requires the creation of an alternative option, and no amount of speech-making will make it happen.

The break with the old politics will only occur when there is something to take its place, and the responsibility lies on the shoulders of those who have the resources, the influence, and, hopefully, the trust of the union membership to make this a real priority. Justice applauds the UE, OCAW & BMWE for committing resources and staff to Labor Party work and for affiliating locals and recruiting serious numbers of new members. They have set the pace, and the success of Party depends on others finding what it takes to follow their example. We also salute the active membership in the chapters, for keeping up the fight during the last two years, for doing the mailings, making the phone calls, debating the resolutions, and for investing enormous time and energy into building the Party. With little by way of resources or encouragement, the Labor Party chapters have, in instances like the Detroit newspaper dispute and the boycotting of the scab ship Neptune Jade, led from the front. Last, but not least, we congratulate Tony Mazzocchi, Catherine Isaacs, and the staff at the national office in Washington for their tremendous work in pulling this convention together. We may have our political disagreements, but no one can afford to overlook their contribution to this historic project.

Socialists Have Helped Build the Labor Party

The presence of socialists in the forefront of many Labor Party chapters has provided the Party with much-needed staying power. Even in the unions, many Labor Party activists are rooted firmly in the left. For socialists in the United States, the formation of the Labor Party presents a tremendous opportunity to create the type of working class politics that will draw organized and unorganized working class people into the struggle for a better future. While many workers are at present unfamiliar or perhaps suspicious of democratic socialist ideas, they will see on the basis of their experience, beyond the limited horizon of capitalism’s economic madness to the need for a society where workers and social needs come before profit and private greed. They will seek a society where the working class has democratic control over the economy. And many young people, especially, will only participate in the Labor Party if those with radical ideas are permitted to organize and express themselves openly.

Electoral Strategy

All the signs indicate that the Labor Party at this convention will adopt criteria for running its own candidates. Justice supports the Electoral Committee’s report. However, we are recommending delegates support changing the proposed requirement that asks for a chartered state Labor Party to be in place before we can contest the elections in a given area. Under the Party’s rules, 1000 members are needed for a chartered state party to exist. This figure is too arbitrary and fails to take into account states with small populations. For now, we feel that the criteria should require a “recognized” state Labor Party, not a “chartered” state party. This amendment, while it removes the 1,000 member limit, will not water down the Committee’s report because local electoral efforts will have to generate enough support to run credible campaigns.

A more flexible approach to electoral work will send the right signal to all those activists who are trying to balance Labor Party work with other activities. It will also help us in recruitment efforts, and give an edge to the soon to be launched Just Health Care campaign. But the electoral move will not be a cure-all; it will merely be a signal that all of us need to engage our creativity and resourcefulness to the historic task of getting this Party ready for battle.

The Struggle for Class Politics

The difficulties will be many. We meet here in Pittsburgh at a time when the labor movement continues to decline in size and strength. The leadership of the AFL-CIO seems to be failing in its limited attempt to revitalize the labor movement. And many unions seem more intent than ever to collaborate with the employers and their politicians. It used to be said that the labor movement’s political strategy was based on “rewarding its friends and punishing its enemies;” now it rewards its enemies because it has so few friends. Despite the rhetoric, labor’s political strategy has been reduced to a thousand back-room deals with mainly incumbent politicians from both parties. Federation leader John Sweeney says labor will support any politician, including Republicans, “who will stand up for working families”(!) Will the AFL-CIO support Labor Party candidates who come from the ranks of our movement? Will labor pump the millions it presently gives to big business politicians into the war chest of the Labor Party, a party of working people standing up for themselves? Not without a struggle. This makes it necessary for the Labor Party to continue to campaign inside the union movement and argue against the false and utopian ideas of the AFL-CIO leaders.

The struggle to elect Labor Party candidates, to become a national party visible to the unorganized and all those fighting injustice and exploitation, can not be separated from the struggle to mobilize all of labor behind a program of independent working class politics and to build a movement of resistance to Wall Street and big business.

The outcome of the struggle to build a mass working class party will determine if the working class will be prepared to conduct a successful defense of its living standards in the face of what could be the biggest economic crisis of capitalism in sixty years.

Becoming Electoral
The Best Way to Build the Party
By Ramy Khalil, Ohio Delegate
Justice #13, November 1998

The most burning question confronting delegates to the Labor Party’s second national convention is: What is the most effective way the Labor Party can become a party of 50,000-100,000 members? The strategy of building the Labor Party (LP) so far has focused primarily on getting unions to endorse and affiliate to the Party. LP workplace committees and community chapters have recruited new members by campaigning for the right to a job at a living wage and by organizing solidarity to local struggles. These strategies of building the party are essential, so we must continue these efforts. But how can we reach a wider audience and recruit more activists? The best way is to stand candidates in local elections in selected areas that meet the LP electoral committee’s proposed criteria of having significant amount of support from unions and the community. However, there is one criterion in the current proposal that should be amended. The proposal requires a chartered state party with 1,000 members to exist before candidates can run for office which is unfair to Labor Party activists in states with small populations such as Vermont. Elections are the only arena with a large enough scope to build a party of 50-100,000 members. The LP current strategy is centered almost exclusively on the recruitment of labor organizations. But well-organized electoral campaigns would allow the party to break into the struggles and issues that affect communities and young people as well as trade unionists.

Challenging the big business politicians would open many doors to increase our membership and bring the program and message of the Labor Party to thousands of people. It would start to give us more of a presence in the media. We could directly debate with the corporate and political machine politicians and have much greater success at forcing them to address issues in our platform and above all allow us to be involved in registering new voters to increase political participation. Standing in elections would give us the opportunity to recruit more people during the rare time in this largely apolitical country when most people think and talk about politics. If we select a number of areas and set a realistic goal of winning 15-30% of the vote and campaign to reach that goal, then it will be a tremendous encouragement and a concrete example to show the labor movement. Running candidates would allow the Labor Party to go to union locals and Central Labor Councils to ask for endorsements and support and explain why they need to break with the Democratic Party.

Electoral Strategy: A Party-Building Tool

The main argument against running candidates is that we have to recruit more people before we can take on an electoral system that is dominated by the corporations. This argument assumes that the first time we run candidates, we will fail if we don’t get into office. Realistically, it will be difficult to get a majority of the vote in a local area in one year if so few people have even heard of the Labor Party.

Another argument against running candidates is that the LP will lose all its finances because laws supposedly prohibits unions from donating to a political party that runs candidates. However, at least three first-rate labor lawyers have been consulted on this issue, and they agree that unions can contribute financially to the Labor Party as a whole, but unions cannot support a particular candidate. Polls in 1992 and 1994 showed that majorities as high as 63% of eligible voters would support a new party. More than half of eligible voters did not even bother to vote in the 1996 presidential elections, which was the lowest turn-out since 1921 and preliminary results of the November ’98 midterm elections showed the trend of very low participation continuing as people see no real alternatives. If the Labor Party does not act, candidates like Jesse “the Body” Ventura in Minnesota will move to exploit the anger that is developing against the politicians of big business. An electoral strategy is not a panacea. F or example following the flawed examples of the New Party or the misnamed “Working Families Party” to endorse Democrats through a different party label would be disastrous for the Labor Party as it would identify the Party with the political establishment rather than highlighting the need for independent working class politics and candidates. If the electoral resolution is passed at this Convention, the Labor Party will be taking an important step in the right direction and will open the way for local activists, chapters and unions to begin to put together the necessary forces for a working class political alternative.

Labor Party
NY Metro Chapter Elections Marred by Fraud
By Alan Jones
Justice #19, March-April 2000

The NY Metro chapter of the Labor Party had a hotly contested election for the Executive Committee in November 1999. The Metro Chapter is the largest chapter of the Labor Party with over 1,000 members at present, (there were over 50 delegates at the last convention) and has a record of playing a trailblazing role in terms of initiatives, campaigns, public events and politics in the party writes ALAN JONES.

The election was marred by fraud and a conscious violation of any sense of democratic process by a grouping (called New Directions—no relation to the genuine union opposition group that exists in the Transit Workers Union in New York) hat n the end succeeded in defeating the former majority in the Executive Committee (who ran as the United Action slate) after an intense campaign. Several members of Socialist Alternative and supporters of Justice ran and campaigned for the United Action slate.

Suspicions of fraud were aroused when the night before ballots were to be sent out, (November 12) membership coupons for scores of new members were handed to the Chapter’s Election committee. A large portion of these—77—were the recruits of one individual candidate of New Directions, who had no record of recruiting anyone before becoming a candidate.

A group of United Action supporters visited those new “members” to try to give them election materials only to discover that the “recruits” included children as young as one year old, 7 years old, ten years old, instances of an address where 8 of the new recruits ostensibly lived there but there was only one person actually living there, and people who had no clue about being members of the Labor Party other than they knew or were related to the New Directions candidate.

A report detailing the fraud was produced with the findings and was sent to the National Office, the NY State Labor Party Council and the Election Committee demanding that action be taken against it in December. At the same time, United Action and Justice supporters spread the word of what was happening and the need ot organize the membership of the chapter to fight against it. A United Action Bulletin was produced in the beginning of January and sent to all the members in the chapter detailing the situation and asking members to take action and join the opposition to the fraudulent election.

National Organizer Tony Mazzochi reacted to the report by deferring to the Election Committee, and the NY State Council ordered that the count go ahead along the lines of a union election, with the right to challenge ballots.

Two members of the Election Committee argued sharply that New Directions and the one candidate in particular was deliberately violating all standards of democratic process. They were in the minority as the Election Committee chair demanded “proof” in order to separate the ballots that were challenged on reasonable grounds before the count.

The Election Committee chair, Larry Adams, (President of Mailhandlers Union Local 300) accepted only 8 challenges from the 77 from one New Directions candidate, ignoring the pattern of fraud indicated by the revelation that children and one dead person actually voted in the election, that most of the ballots were mailed the same day and from the same location, etc. The result, in which New Directions candidates elected all 17 of their slate by an average differential of about 60 votes, was indelibly tainted and strongly suggests that they had to resort to these methods in order to steal the election.

Political Differences

While for some of the members in the chapter it appeared as if the dispute was over who was going to get elected and feuding groups of activists, the reality is that there are substantive political differences—mainly relating to the role and the political direction of the Metro Chapter, and the Labor Party as a whole.

These issues were brought up in the United Action caucus Bulletin which explained: “we believe that the issues we will be taking up—complete independence from the Democrats, the need for a Labor Party that runs candidates, and a more determined approach to party building—will only be advanced if members are organized to fight around those issues within the chapter… and against those who have an altogether different agenda—‘fusion’ politics, stunted discussion and sanitized forms of activism.”

This could be seen in the election material published by the two slates during the election. The New Directions literature nowhere mentions anything about running candidates. In one of the flyers, “Five Ways to Alienate the Labor Movement” they complain about discussion in the Chapter to picket the “Central Labor Council because it endorsed Giuliani; Organize a campaign to ‘call on’ DC 37 to rescind its Gore endorsement,” and complained about a flyer which explained to public sector workers that “our unions have rolled over at contract time.” New Direction clearly did not think that speaking about these issues to union members in the chapter and beyond was appropriate. Their approach is determined by an acceptance and compliance with the policies of the existing conservative union leadership in the City.

Despite the absence of any significant union support and the outright hostility of a large section of union officials (who remain firmly embedded in the Democratic Party and even supported the right-wing Republican Mayor Giuliani for mayor because it looked like he was going to win) the Metro Chapter managed to grow and create a political space in New York at a time of retreat, defeats for labor, student and community movement.

This was possible because of the unflinching support, hard work and leadership of a number of socialists, supporters of this newspaper, and other activists who were prepared to campaign for the idea of an independent political party of the working class since before the LP was established and helped promote the idea that led to the creation of Labor Party Advocates—years ago and later the founding of the Labor Party.

Among the achievements of the Metro Chapter was not only the membership growth, but also the organizing of regular political events, organizing support for strikes and international struggles, (including support for Mumia, support for the Liverpool dock workers, campaign and support for the Detroit News workers, the Transit Workers in New York, tenant struggles, support for postal workers, and many more.) Several campaigns and high-profile events were organized including an event on the need for single payer healthcare and more recently and event commemorating labor martyr Karen Silkwood which was attended by 700 people.

Campaigning for an Electoral Strategy

Since the beginning of last year, United Action activists in the chapter moved in the direction of building local groups in Brooklyn, Queens and other areas with a view of preparing the ground for electoral work in the 2001 elections for City Council. In terms of New York politics, the Chapter produced leaflets and material that called on public sector and other workers to reject the bankrupt strategy of the leadership of the Central Labor Council and major unions in the city of support for the Democrats or Republicans and opposed the endorsement without discussion of Al Gore, for president and Hillary Clinton for senator by major unions in the city.

It was in reality this course of action taken by the chapter that New Directions and their backroom supporters are opposed to. As they explained in their various speeches and campaign literature, opposing union officials because of their public stance on issues, may ‘alienate’ them and they will not look favorably toward joining the Labor Party! (Incidental to the kind of union officials New Directions is looking to appeal to was Lou Albano, from AFSCME Local DC 37 who was involved in fraud in his own local when he was challenged by a reform slate a couple of years ago.)

The handful of unions that support the Labor Party in New York (CWA Local 1180, OSA) have been lukewarm in their support. At the last convention, they were at the forefront arguing as campaigning for the Labor Party to adopt a ‘fusion’ plank in order to endorse ‘progressive’ Democrats, presumably the way the Working Families Party is doing with Hillary Clinton for the senate race (after ‘tactically’ endorsing the darling of the real estate industry Peter Vallone for governor last year). This would have been the kiss of death for a party that aims to organize independently and on the basis of a working class program. At the convention, the Metro chapter was in clear opposition to the NY union officials who support the Labor Party, but also continue to be involved in the Democratic Party, the New Party and the Working Families Party (which have now merged in NY). The Chair of the NY State Labor Party Arthur Cheliotes (CWA local 1180) is also very active with the Working Families Party.

The possibility that the Metro chapter would be campaigning to run credible campaigns for the city council represented a serious threat to all those who see the Labor Party as more or less an educational effort, that would be better off keeping a low, non-confrontational and non-electoral profile. Naturally, such a strategy would hardly keep the interest of activists and would tend to lead the party into stagnation at best.

Another key issue that brought the New Directions grouping together was their conscious and well-organized redbaiting campaign against organized socialists and leftists hwo have been in the leadership of the chapter for a long time and have a record of building the party. Having no serious political record of achievements in building the party, New Directions retreated in this time-honored, bankrupt method of political struggle in order to confuse, create suspicion and divert from the issues. In one of their campaign flyers, the New Directions slate argued: “We come together in respect for democratic process, working for an effective multi-tendency chapter that no single organization can dominate or use for its own purposes.” This was a mild rendition of their long-standing orchestrated campaign against supporters of Justice and Socialist Alternative (formerly Labor Militant) in the chapter. But they have no evidence either of domination or “use for its own purposes.” As for New Directions respect for democratic process, their involvement with fraud in this election, says it all.

Responding to the redbaiting, United Action states in its principles: “We stand for the right of individual socialists and socialist groups to be constructively engaged in building the Labor Party. We are absolutely opposed to the redbaiting, back-stabbing and innuendo aimed at other Party members.”

The fact that nominal socialists, including members of Solidarity, lent a left cover to the redbaiting campaign—probably believing that this will serve them to get closer to the good graces of union officials—shows how easily people can lose their way and how easily the lessons of the past can be forgotten. They forget that to this day we are paying the price for the redbaiting campaigns against the left in the unions from decades ago. Furthermore, if these methods can be used against one group, they will be used again when the time is right against another, opening the door for bureaucratization and destruction of democratic debate and political rights in the party.

On a Destructive Course

New Directions and their backers are unlikely to stop their destructive course. In fact they are now bound to go to the offensive to undermine precisely the kind of politics Metro Chapter has campaigned for. Supporters of Justice, the United Action caucus and other activists will continue to fight against the policies and methods of the New Directions caucus. The real struggle will be to find ways to continue the campaigns that the Labor Party ahs launched on healthcare, workers’ rights, and local organizing committees, which can prepare the way for electoral initiatives to be taken in New York.

After failing to intervene on the issue of the fraud, Labor Party national organizer, Tony Mazzocchi, announced the formation of a committee of union officials to investigate the situation in the Metro Chapter in New York. But as a result of Tony Mazzocchi’s inaction, the election result has been allowed to stand. There will be further appeals against the election result in the coming months. However, little confidence can be placed in this committee because there is no rank and file representation, no representation from the United Action slate and some members of the committee are hostile to the previous leadership of the chapter.

The key issue is to clarify the political questions raises, educate end recruit new members who want to see the Labor Party in New York and nationally develop and build a real working class alternative to the parties of the bosses. Furthermore, these struggles inside the Labor Party will continue to occur.

Inevitably there would be conflict over the direction and program of the party between those seeking to pull the party in a conservative direction and against the influence of socialist and radical ideas in the party. Socialists, while welcoming the participation of more unions and new members in the Labor Party, will continue to campaign for a clear program that can take the class struggle forward in the US, and explain the need forr democracy and freedom of expression in the party.

The Labor Party will only be able to grow and attract mass support if it shows that it is not a bureaucratic, top-down organization run in a similar way as the unions which repels many young people and activists.

Justice and Socialist Alternative will continue to support and collaborate with all who want to build the Labor Party in New York and other cities because it represents a genuine step forward for working class people, and will continue to make constructive proposals and recommendations about what is the best course to build a working class political alternative. Members of the Labor Party across the country should be informed about the events in the NY elections and should send letters to the National Office to overturn the fraudulent election result.

Join Justice/Socialist Alternative and campaign to build a strong, democratic and electoral Labor Party!

New York Metro Chapter Suspended by State Executive Committee
How NOT to Build the Labor Party
By Alan Jones
Justice #20, June-July 2000

In May, the New York Labor Party State Executive Committee suspended the New York Metro Chapter of the Labor Party, the largest Labor Party chapter in the country. This action constitutes a serious violation of democratic rights and internal democracy that will affect all local chapters around the country

In response, we have launched a campaign among NY Metro Chapter members and suspended officers to lift the suspension and re-establish the democratic rights of all members. Members of the chapters have asked Labor Party members and all chapters to send letters of protest and resolution against the suspension to the Interim National Council before it meets in July.

The suspension of the 900-member NY Metro Chapter came after a period of intense conflict about the political direction of the party in New York. The struggle came to a head last Fall during a sharply-contested election for chapter Executive Committee.

Members of the United Action Slate, including several members of Socialist Alternative and supporters of Justice newspaper, documented and exposed that infants, children, phantom members and at least one dead person voted for the New Directions slate.

At this time, no investigation has been conducted either by the Election Convention majority or the national office. The formal appeal presented to the State executive in early January has not been considered and there are no plans nor any stated intentions to do so. In January, we made a formal appeal to the State executive, but it has not yet been considered.

In early March, a special Commission met to discuss in the chapter. This report released on March 28, noted that “New Directions supporters… clearly engaged in questionable practices to advance their immediate agenda.” These practices, said the Commission, “shed discredit on the Labor Party and they must be condemned.” New Directions won 17 of the 20 slots in the election.

The fraud factor clearly determined the outcome of this election, but the State Executive Committee and the National Organizer of the Labor Party Tony Mazzocchi did not attempt to protect the rights of the membership on this crucial issue.

The Ny LP State Executive Committee announced in early May that membership meetings would be suspended and elected delegates would be banned from attending the state convention in May.

In response the State Executive announced that it would recognize members of the fraudulently elected Executive Committee of the chapter! The State Executive Committee refused to circulate the Commission’s report and put a gag order on any member who wanted to discuss their actions.

A number of banned delegates elected at the April membership meeting organized a protest outside the State Convention and talked to other delegates about the situation in the chapter. We pointed out that the actions of the State Executive Committee violate article VIII.4 of the NYLP’s own bylaws (Membership Bill of Rights) which states that “Members shall not be restricted in the exercise of their rights to freedom of speech concerning the operation of the NY Labor Party and its related bodies. Active and open discussion of party affairs and the expressions of Members’ views shall be protected within the party.”

Furthermore, the NY State Executive prohibited the attendance of any delegates who are not EC members. At the Metro Chapter meeting on April 7, 60 members of the Chapter elected 14 delegates to the state convention, according to the chapter and state party bylaws

The State Convention

In May, the state convention of the Labor Party attracted approximately 40 people, including guests. By contrast, two years ago over 100 delegates and observers from several chapters and affiliated unions from across the state attended.

The former chair of the NY State Labor Party, Arthur Cheliotes, announced recently his intention to run with the Working Families Party, a pressure group supporting the Democratic Party. Another officer of the State Labor Party, Howard Botwinick, refused to run for re-election or attend the May Convention. There are no functioning organizations (chapters, etc.) of the Labor Party in upstate New York, and the unions that have supported the Labor Party are now drifting towards the Working Families Party.

One of the featured speakers was Reform Party presidential candidate Bob Bowman (who among his other credentials is a rocket scientist who worked on the Star Wars program of Reagan). He stands for single payer health care, and is “pro-labor.” After his stump speech, Brenda Stokely, the new chair of the New York State Labor Party, pronounced that Bowman was a candidate “who all could vote for.’ The suspension of the Labor Party’s largest chapter in the country received barely a mention at the hand-picked Convention, despite the efforts of those who had been suspended to raise their issues. Membership among unions affiliated with the LP has stagnated since the last Convention. Clearly, state leadership is not willing or able to build the Labor Party in New York State. In reality, the NY State Labor Party does not exist. It will have to be rebuilt by the efforts of individuals and activists.

Sharp Contrast

Previously the chapter had risen to over 900 members and started to organize local committees to campaign on health care and workers’ rights. It also kept the membership active through meetings, forums and events.

The United Action Caucus submitted a serious strategy to build the party, which included running local candidates. It also called for an open debate in the labor movement about the presidential elections. United Action Caucus campaigned for the Labor Party to run local candidates for the City Council as a way to build the party as a working class alternative to the Democrats and their appendage, the Working Families Party.

Thus, there exists an impasse in the Labor Party in New York and explains why the attack on the Metro Chapter is taking place. The Metro Chapter is taking place. The Metro chapter’s program of activism threatens the status quo of the labor movement—both inside and outside the Labor Party.

New Directions openly used red-baiting in the campaign for the Executive Committee due mainly to the fact that supporters of United Action are open and honest socialists. These activists should be credited for the chapter’s achievements over the past several years.

Members and officers of the chapter launched a campaign to immediately re-instate the Metro Chapter’s officers and bylaws.

We plan to mail the Commission’s findings to the chapter membership, and will convene a full membership meeting of the Metro Chapter to discuss all proposals pertaining to the chapter and the party for debate and a democratic vote.

Despite the suspension of democratic rights, the State Executive Committee has nto taken away our First Amendment rights. Labor Party members will continue to meet and be active regardless of the status of the chapter and will continue to build the Labor Party and serious working class political alternatives in New York. This can only be done, on the basis of a struggle to reject the false ideas of support for the appendages of the Democrats and to build a strong, democratic Labor Party and prepare the way for independent electoral campaigns for the city council next year.

We are asking you to write letters of protest about the suspension of the democratic rights of the Metro Chapter by the officers of the State Executive Committee to:

Labor Party Interim National Council:
PO Box 53117
Washington, DC 20009

Pleace send copies to

Justice:
3311 Mission Street, Suite 135,
San Francisco, CA 94110

progress@ix.netcom.com

For further information on the Metro Chapter contact:

Margaret Collins, Former Executive Committee Member and banned delegate
(212) 545-1766
e-mail: mcollins123@worldnet.att.net

Sean Sweeney, suspended Chapter Chair, member INC,
(718) 369-2998
e-mail: glomtatt@aol.com

Why the Labor Party Should Support Nader
By Philip Locker, founding LP member
Justice #21, September-October 2000

The campaign of Ralph Nader for president represents an historic break in US politics. It has created a new situation that contains major opportunities for the construction of a mass workers party, but also important dangers, which hinge on the ability of the Labor Party and socialists to effectively intervene in this process.

Ralph Nader, a member of the LP (Labor Party), is running as an independent, and is the only candidate to consistently defend unions, workers and the environment and to attack racism and discrimination. His campaign is capitalizing on the unprecedented disgust with the Democrats and Republicans and is an electoral expression of the newly emerging movement seen in Seattle-Washington-Philadelphia and Los Angeles of workers and young people against corporate domination of society.

Socialist Alternative decided to give critical support to Nader’s campaign in February when it became clear that neither the LP nor the AFL-CIO was willing to put forward a workers alternative in the presidential election. A real workers’ candidate would have been preferable to the campaign of Ralph Nader, a radical middle class populist.

Unfortunately, the LP leadership decided to abstain from this central event in American politics and refused to launch a serious campaign inside the AFL-CIO for the unions to break from the Democrats and run their own candidate. The leaders of the union movement and the Labor Party refused to fill this vacuum to the left of the Democrats and give a fighting expression to the growing anger of workers and youth. Nader and the Greens have stepped up and catapulted themselves onto the political stage.

In light of this new situation, Socialist Alternative calls on the LP to give critical support to Ralph Nader by launching an energetic campaign to intervene in this election, putting forward the LP working class agenda and a call for a mass workers’ party as the only real alternative to the Republicrats. By taking such an approach, the LP could position themselves to capitalize on the anger of rank and file unionists at the Democrats, and deepen this mood. Such an effort would open up a massive debate in the unions, greatly raising the profile of the LP and attracting around it the best union militants.

If the LP had conducted such a campaign earlier this year, it would have been able to pounce on the debates inside the UAW and Teamsters union on whether to endorse Gore or Nader. By throwing its weight into these crucial struggles, the LP could have tipped the debate in the direction of Nader. Instead, the LP stayed out of these crucial battles.

”Rules” and Reality

It does no good to hide our heads in the sand and repeat formulas, “rules,” and speak of “the constitution.” The INC (Interim National Council — the LP leadership structure) was elected precisely for and authorized to take decisions on issues before the Party that are new and pressing.

This is also why it is incorrect to hold conventions of the LP only once every 3.5 years. Standard practice around the world for workers’ parties is to have annual conventions, for the purpose of being able to democratically discuss, debate and act on sudden changes in the situation.

LP activists must not be distracted by technicalities — when rules get in the way of building a mass workers party, we must throw the rules out the window! Besides, as activists have seen in the recent dispute in the NY Metro LP chapter, the LP leadership is willing to look the other way, or even participate in outrageous violations of the LP’s by-laws and constitution, much less the democratic process, if it serves their political agenda.

The Labor Party’s Electoral Strategy Put to the Test

Nader’s campaign has proven that the opportunity to build a party to challenge big business, the Democrats and Republicans, and fight for working people exists. Nader has also demonstrated the invaluable role that elections can play in building a party, recruiting members, strengthening a movement on the ground, popularizing its program and raising its profile. Nader’s campaign has disproved the contention of the LP leadership that you should not run for office unless you have an excellent chance of winning with the backing of the majority of the union movement.

Instead, Nader tossed his hat into the ring, with modest resources, limited union support and a few activists. He wasn’t afraid to start somewhere, and fight to build from there. Since he launched his campaign, he has raised over two million dollars, won the support of millions of workers and young people, and won the endorsement of the California Nurses Association, and the United Electrical Workers (both active in the LP no less!) caused a debate inside the UAW and Teamsters, and could well end up winning more union endorsements (most likely the Farm Labor Organizing Committee), and especially from union locals.

Nader has accomplished this despite his limited program and the middle class approach of the Green Party. The LP, with a working class program and roots in the unions, would have gotten an even better response with a systematic campaign among the rank and file.

As Socialist Alternative (formerly Labor Militant) has consistently warned from the LP’s founding convention, if the party does not begin to step into the electoral arena it will become deadlocked, stagnate and eventually be bypassed by other formations. We fought for the LP to run candidates to actively challenge the two parties as the most effective way, at this stage, of building the LP. Without such an approach, we warned, the LP would remain isolated and cut off from real struggles and remain unknown to the vast majority of rank and file union members and working class communities.

The LP should have set out on a course of systematically running local candidates after its convention in 1996, gaining electoral experience and positioning itself to be the left challenger in the 2000 elections. If this strategy had been adopted, the LP would have been positioned in 2000 to make a qualitative, historic breakthrough. It could have become a nationally known political force, popularized its program and message to tens of millions of workers, rapidly increased its membership, and provoked a massive debate inside the unions, possibly leading to sections of the AFL-CIO breaking from the Democrats and joining the LP.

Instead the LP has been out-maneuvered by a radical, middle class party (the Greens) and a left populist, Ralph Nader. The danger is posed that the Greens may consolidate to their program and party an important layer of voters (including many workers and youth) and the newly emerging movement that began in Seattle. This will hold back for many years the struggle to build a mass working class party based on the trade unions.

It is in order to combat this danger that the LP must forcefully intervene in the Nader campaign, to win the best workers and youth to its program and class orientation.

If all this is true, than why do the LP leaders steadfastly refuse to seriously run candidates? Because the leadership of the major unions affiliated to the LP refuse to break with the Democrats where it hurts (in elections) and the LP leadership is mortified at the idea of provoking the wrath of the AFL-CIO leadership.

We need a fighting, uncompromising leadership that will place the needs of workers and building the LP ahead of all other considerations. Building a mass LP will inevitably cause massive convulsions and fights inside the AFL-CIO. This cannot be avoided. We need a leadership that is clear on this necessity, and has the political will and strategy to face up to this reality.

For a Mass Workers’ Party!

The question of a mass workers’ party has now been concretely placed on the immediate agenda by Nader’s challenge in 2000. If his campaign continues to do well, it will greatly increase the opportunities to break the unions away from the Democratic Party. Millions will be looking for a new “third party.”

The movement will face an important fork in the road: will it stop short as only a single electoral campaign around one individual, or will it go forward? Will it form a new, broad party that provides a vehicle to deepen and extend the emerging mass movement on the ground while continually challenging the Democrats and Republicans in the electoral arena?

Second, what will be the character of this party? A middle class party with a confused program (along the lines of the Green Party), or a working class party?

The resolution of these challenges will be determined by the conscious intervention of those forces that understand the need for a mass workers party.

Socialist Alternative is campaigning for the creation of a new, broad, workers party to emerge from Nader’s campaign.

We call on Ralph Nader, who has enormous authority and prestige, to convene a conference after the elections, of students, unions, community, civil rights, left, and environmentalist organizations to form such a party.

We appeal to the LP, and all LP activists to join us in this effort.

Labor Party’s 3rd National Convention
The Fight for a Workers’ Party Continues
By Ramy Khalil, ATU Local 587, Seattle
Justice #30, June-August 2002

From July 25 to 28 the Labor Party is holding its third national convention in Washington, D.C. However, there is a sharp contrast between the lack of interest in this convention and the excitement of the 1996 founding convention. The founding convention in Cleveland attracted 1,400 delegates from 9 international unions and hundreds of union locals. A number of enthusiastic union activists came hoping that severing ties with the Democrats and building a Labor Party could halt labor's 20 years of defeats.

Since then, only a slice of union officials and activists have even heard of the Labor Party. The LP has not been able to get its Just Health Care campaign off the ground, and chapter membership has dried up. Going into the LP's 2nd national convention in 1998, the party's newspaper was full of interviews and debates between LP activists about how to build the party effectively. This time, there are so few activists left that The LP Press did not run a single article about convention debates - just the invitation to the conference.

LP leaders explain away the LP's stagnation with similar explanations that "experts" use to rationalize low voter turnout - American workers are complacent and content; change won't happen overnight. But many Americans have stopped voting because they see through the lies and broken promises of both the Democrats and Republicans. In fact, polls repeatedly show Americans want a third party. A Gallup/CNN/USA poll on 10/27/00, for example, found that 67% of Americans want a strong third party to run candidates for national office.

What Happened to the Labor Party?

The LP's decline is not due to a lack of interest, but rather the LP leadership's refusal to run candidates. How can people take the Labor Party seriously if it does not run candidates?

While getting candidates elected cannot change society, elections can be an important tool to reach a wider audience and build grassroots movements in the streets. The LP will only be seen as an attractive force if it boldly puts its program out there in elections and leads workers in struggles that bring about real improvements in their lives.

Justice argued since the founding of the LP that if it did not run candidates to fill the political vacuum opening up by the increasing anger at the corporations and their two parties, then other parties would. The Presidential campaign of left populist Ralph Nader did exactly that. Nader's campaign was a major step forward for the emerging movement against corporate globalization, popularizing its basic ideas among millions of people, and uniting different single-issue movements into a common struggle against corporate rule.

When the LP failed to run a Presidential candidate or join the Nader campaign, it missed a huge opportunity to raise its profile and recruit from the crowds of 10-15,000 that Nader drew in many cities. Instead, the Green Party was the only large organized force in the Nader campaign, which lacked the working class base and program of the LP, which could have attracted many more Americans. The LP is also oriented towards the labor movement, which has the institutional resources and the powerful working class base necessary to seriously challenge the twin parties of big business.

The LP has not connected with most living struggles and movements. It has been totally unattractive to the growing anti-corporate youth movement (unlike Nader who won massive support amongst anti-corporate youth and workers in the 2000 elections).

The LP leadership's failure to openly and publicly oppose Bush's war on Afghanistan was a dangerous mistake. The LP should have taken a principled stand by condemning the horrific terrorist attacks of 9/11 but also explaining how Bush's war in no way represents the interests of workers and will only exacerbate terrorism. A fighting workers' party would win support by standing in elections and opposing the two parties' identical agenda of budget cuts, attacks on democratic rights, racism and war.

If the Labor Party is unable to maintain an independent working class position in times of war, then it wouldn't be able to withstand the enormous pressures to compromise with big business if it were to get candidates elected to office. Workers' parties in other countries have ended up carrying out attacks on working people because they lacked a socialist program and an independent class position on all issues. Either a workers' party changes the system, or else the system will change the workers' party.

Another factor in the LP's decline has been its lack of democracy. A key turning point was the shutting down of the New York Metropolitan chapter – the largest, most vibrant chapter in the country with over 1000 members. The LP Interim National Council turned a blind eye when the NY State LP body disbanded the local chapter because Socialist Alternative members had been elected into the leadership of the chapter and were preparing to run local LP candidates.

The LP's Relationship with the AFL-CIO

Many left-wing union officials endorsed or affiliated to the LP on paper. Yet they refused to allow the LP to run candidates because if it did, they knew AFL-CIO President John Sweeney would have declared war on the LP and the union officials who supported it.

A Labor Party would have to seize this opportunity to open up a debate in the labor movement, from the rank-and-file on up, on why the AFL-CIO continues to waste members' dues on the same Democratic party that gave us NAFTA, the WTO, and other attacks on labor. As LP polls have indicated, there is more support for a labor party than the Democrats or Republicans.

Instead, LP leader Tony Mazzocchi's strategy was to avoid this inevitable clash with the AFL-CIO leaders by getting a significant number of labor leaders to endorse the LP before running candidates.

However, history shows that mass workers' parties have only been built through titanic events and class battles, provoking crises and debates within the unions. Well-paid union officials cannot be rationally convinced of the need to break their cozy alliance with the Democrats. On the contrary, the AFL-CIO leadership will fight hard to maintain their links with the Democrats because of their overall support for capitalism.

The key force in building a mass workers' party will be millions of politicized and active workers and youth. Labor leaders have historically only supported independent workers' parties when they absolutely had to, once it became so popular among union members that labor leaders would be voted out if they didn't jump on the bandwagon.

What Next?

The LP's stagnation does not prove that things will never change in America. On the contrary, the formation of the LP (and the movement against corporate globalization, the Nader campaign, the Reform Party, etc.) are signs of the deep cracks in the two-party system. Since the end of the post-war economic boom in 1973, corporations have been attacking the living standards of the working class, setting the stage for social upheaval and the eventual emergence of a mass workers' party.

While the space has been opening up for a workers' party, the experience of the LP demonstrates that it is not enough to just sit back and wait for people to come flocking to the party. A workers' party needs to actively fill the vacuum and harness the growing anger at the two parties. This requires a leadership that bases itself on the needs of the movement and the capacity of workers to struggle, not the boundaries set by the top AFL-CIO officials.

The AFL-CIO should use its powerful resources to run independent candidates across the country in November. With a bold working class program, they would win the support of millions, laying the basis for the formation of a mass workers' party. The LP and union members should argue for this within the AFL-CIO.

The LP Convention delegates should also adopt a strategy of running selected independent candidates in the November Congressional and local races. On this basis, the Labor Party could become a pole of attraction to hundreds of thousands of the most far-sighted workers and youth seeking a political alternative. Otherwise, the LP will continue stagnating, wither away or collapse.

Whatever happens at the LP convention, union, community, anti-globalization, anti-war, LP, Green, and socialist activists should form local coalitions and run independent candidates as the next step in the struggle to build a workers' party.

*************

Comrades:

Our history within the Labor Party featured maybe ten years of intense
activity. I ended up feeling betrayed by the so-called "progressive"
unions, but I know that I was and am naive about union power politics.
We started there as Labor Militant, and we briefly had a Campaign for
a Labor Party--I remember Peter Taaffe coming over for an organizing
event for the CLP--until we stepped aside for Labor Party Advocates,
the predecessor of the Labor Party. We did a lot to organize chapters
until we were told that many of them didn't qualify as chapters (like
our short-lived "chapter" in Lansing). But we had leadership positions
in New York City and Boston and elsewhere.

I attended all three national conferences of the Labor
Party--Cleveland, Pittsburgh, and the shameful final one in
Washington, D.C.--but living in Midwest I also remember an important
early meeting at the Royce Hotel at Detroit Metro Airport and a
meeting on platform in Toledo. Both were well-attended. The Healyites
(now SEP) showed up to denounce us all. Steve Edwards from Chicago
played a role in both those conferences--as did other Chicago
comrades, not in SA now. I also remember Lorraine Dardis, now in
London, leading a workshop in Toledo.

Occupying the streets of Cleveland at our founding meeting left the
impression that the LP would be not only electoral but activist. (I
remember our comrade Martha courageously holding up copies of our
paper when the large and spirited march left the streets and occupied
the Marriott Hotel.) But the Labor Party proved neither electoral nor
activist.

When my health improves, I need to get together with Jeff to find out
more about why the unions screwed us and the working class by shutting
down this hopeful initiative.

Comradely,

Vic