From The International Communist League Press

Spartacist Canada No. 174	Fall 2012

Plus ça change...

1978 Quebec Student Strike Against PQ

Amid the social turmoil that has shaken Quebec this year, the bourgeois-nationalist Parti Québécois has postured as a supporter of the students and their demands. But as the following article recounts, the PQ’s austerity attacks during its first term of office in the 1970s provoked an earlier, massive student strike. This underscores the fact that when in power the PQ is a brutal administrator of the capitalist profit system against workers, students and the poor, and that the program of nationalism is counterposed to the interests of the working class. Marxists advocate Quebec independence, and simultaneously fight to break workers and youth from illusions in the PQ as well as its left appendages like Québec Solidaire.

The article was originally published in SC No. 33 (February 1979) under the title “100,000 Students Strike Against PQ.”

---

In one of the most militant student strikes in North America since the sixties, thousands of students from community colleges (CEGEP) across Quebec walked out for six weeks during November and December to protest a Parti Québécois (PQ) government white paper on college education. The PQ’s white paper proposed a whole series of budget cuts which would establish more direct control over the academic life of the CEGEPs and reduce the accessibility to higher education in Quebec. In particular, the report advocated establishing more restrictive enrollment quotas and tying bursary allocations to the needs of business.

The strike began in Rimouski on November 7, but rapidly spread to other CEGEPs across the province. By the end of November close to 100,000 students were out on the streets demanding free tuition and guaranteed bursaries indexed to the cost of living for all students. While the strike was strongest among French-speaking students it is significant that it was joined by students at at least one English-language CEGEP (the Lennoxville campus of Champlain College).

When he was hustling votes to boost the bourgeois nationalist PQ into power, party leader René Lévesque wooed Quebec students with the promise of free education. Now that the PQ is in office, Lévesque has dropped his populist appeals to student voters in the name of the “economic stability” so necessary to marketing the bonds of an “independent” capitalist Quebec on Wall Street. When the CEGEP students struck in protest against the white paper, PQ Minister of Education, Jacques-Yvan Morin castigated them for their “greed” and wailed that if the students won their demands it would cost the government $204 million. So much for free education. Meanwhile 600 students from Rimouski rallied on November 15 (the second anniversary of the PQ’s electoral victory) and burned copies of the PQ’s program and its white paper on education.

The PQ hardlined it from the beginning. At least three student occupations were brutally broken up by the police. On November 23, 1,000 students who had marched to the Ministry of Education offices in Montreal to press their demands were forced to call off a brief occupation of the offices under threat of a riot squad attack.

The following day Lévesque told 3,000 students at Laval University that the government had no intention of knuckling under to the CEGEP students’ demands. Nevertheless, Lévesque would prefer not to alienate Quebec’s student population which comprises an important part of the PQ’s popular base. Therefore, early in December the government announced a few cosmetic “reforms” in its student aid program—a promise to “take into account” high student unemployment and a minimal reduction in the parental contribution to educational costs. By mid-December the strike had fizzled out at most colleges.

Students by themselves lack the social weight to wring significant concessions from the capitalists and their government. The PQ’s education cutbacks are of a piece with its attacks on public sector unions and its record of strikebreaking. The same cops that were sent in to break up the student occupations have been repeatedly used by the PQ to herd scabs and break strikes. Thus Marxists seek to link the fight against educational cutbacks on campus to the struggle of the labor movement against the bosses’ across-the-board austerity offensive.

Lévesque once held out the promise of “free education” to win student support for the PQ’s program of bourgeois nationalism. Today however this promise has been ripped up and Lévesque is making it perfectly clear that it is the working class, the exploited and the oppressed that are supposed to foot the bill for “sovereignty” for the Quebec bourgeoisie.

Despite the PQ’s willingness to make demagogic promises of “a better life for all” in an independent Quebec the CEGEP strike demonstrates that Lévesque and Co. are as committed to the maintenance of capitalist class privilege as any other bourgeois politicians. Education will be the right of all and will genuinely serve the interests of the masses of the population only when the workers of Quebec and English-speaking North America unite to sweep away capitalism through socialist revolution.

From The International Communist League Press

Workers Hammer No. 220	Autumn 2012

30 years after Falklands/Malvinas war

Britain and Argentina: between some rocks and losing face

This spring marked the thirtieth anniversary of the bizarre, dirty little war between British imperialism and the Argentine junta over some desolate rocks in the South Atlantic. Both Margaret Thatcher’s vicious Tory government and General Leopoldo Galtieri’s bloody military dictatorship used the conflict over the Falklands — known in Argentina as the Malvinas — as a diversion to arouse patriotism, quell social struggle and boost their fortunes. It was in the interest of the working class in each country for “their” bourgeois rulers to be humiliated in defeat: Thatcher’s victory spelled bad news for the British working class, while the Argentine defeat resulted in the fall of Galtieri’s regime. This year, with austerity and repression on the agenda of both governments, you could be forgiven for thinking that they had orchestrated some kind of parody of the conflict as an anniversary commemoration.

Prime Minister David Cameron has made clear his government’s intention to hang on to this archipelago in the South Atlantic, nearly 8000 miles from Britain’s coast. Britain dispatched its prized destroyer, HMS Dauntless, and a submarine; to add some pomp the RAF sent Prince William to the Falklands. For its part, the Argentine government aptly condemned Britain’s behaviour as “colonial” and declared British oil exploration in the area to be “illegal” and “clandestine”. The trading bloc Mercosur, which includes Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay, closed those countries’ ports to ships flying the Falklands flag and Argentina turned away several British cruise ships.

After accusing the Argentine government of behaving in a colonial manner, Cameron cynically lectured president Cristina Fernandez on the islanders’ national rights: “We should believe in self determination and act as democrats here”. Cameron flaunts his commitment to self-determination against Argentina but it is not much in evidence when it comes to Scotland, which his government insists should remain part of the “United Kingdom”. And who in their right mind could imagine the British prime minister invoking democratic rights for the people of Diego Garcia? The British imperialist overlords expelled the island’s inhabitants in the 1960s to make way for a US military base. In 2004, Tony Blair’s Labour government used the royal prerogative to overturn a high court judgement which would have allowed the islanders to return. As Richard Gifford, a lawyer representing the 4500 islanders and their descendants, remarked: “Not since the days of King John has anyone tried to expel British citizens from the realm by executive order.” Now there’s a lesson in how the British imperialists “believe in self determination and act as democrats”! US/British imperialists out of Diego Garcia! For a right of return and compensation!

The Tory-led government, which is deeply unpopular among the working class at home for imposing punishing austerity measures, is shamelessly trying to whip up a version of the “Falklands factor” to boost its ratings. Before the 1982 conflict, British governments had been trying to unload the Falklands for years, including handing over various administrative powers to Argentina. “But once the Argentines had invaded, an enfeebled Britain saw a chance to reassert the obscene traditions of the Empire, and Thatcher was not about to let it pass”, as we wrote in Spartacist Britain (no 42, May 1982). The sinking of the Argentine General Belgrano battleship, upon Thatcher’s orders, was a genuine war crime. Hundreds of conscripts were slaughtered while the ship was outside Britain’s own declared war zone. British naval officers made no effort to rescue the survivors huddled together in lifeboats trying to avoid freezing to death.

The Argentine bourgeoisie’s claims to the Falklands are based on the heritage of the Spanish crown. The British invaded in 1833, some two decades after Argentine independence. The islands, 300 miles from the Argentine coast, have since been inhabited by English-speaking settlers. According to the Guardian (13 September) a recent census shows that of 2563 residents, fewer than a third consider themselves British while 59 per cent regard themselves as Falkland Islanders. In a rational world, there is no reason for Britain, Argentina or any other country to have sovereignty over the Falkland/ Malvinas islands. The inhabitants should be left alone to fish, graze sheep, host tourists and the occasional scientific expedition. To defend its bogus claim to sovereignty over the Falklands, Britain maintains a military base at Mount Pleasant Airfield, in addition to various stations in the South Atlantic. All British military bases out of the South Atlantic!

The main enemy is at home!

During the Falklands war we put forward the perspective of revolutionary defeatism on both sides, expressed in slogans such as: “Sink Thatcher! Sink the Junta!” We wrote: “we think that as long as these two viciously anti-working-class regimes go at one another, it’s a good thing if they grind up their respective military machines. Marxists are revolutionary defeatist on both sides in the present conflict. The potential for a massive class upsurge in Argentina is obvious and Thatcher, too, is hated by Britain’s workers” (Spartacist Britain no 42, May 1982). At the time, Britain and Argentina were two of the staunchest allies in Washington’s Cold War II anti-Soviet crusade which, as defenders of the Soviet Union, we Trotskyists opposed. As our comrades in the US wrote at the time, “revolutionary socialists can only look forward to the spectacle of these two hated right-wing regimes sinking each other’s fleets on the high seas” (Workers Vanguard no 304, 30 April 1982).

For General Galtieri, “recovery” of the Falklands/Malvinas began as a textbook case of a despotic regime trying to take the heat off at home by launching a foreign invasion. The world’s highest inflation rate, industry operating at 50 per cent capacity, and skyrocketing unemployment stoked popular anger, already boiling over from the military’s “dirty war” of terror in which more than 10,000 leftists and other opponents had been killed and 30,000 disappeared. On 30 March 1982, 15,000 workers were met with brutal repression when they attempted to protest in front of the presidential palace. Three days later Argentine commandos seized the Falklands. Galtieri was banking on Washington’s support as a well-earned reward for backing the US’s war against the Sandinistas in Nicaragua and leftist insurgents in El Salvador. After all, Galtieri had declared that the third world war had already begun in the Americas, a war between the “free world”, led by the United States, and Soviet Communism. But after failing to prevent Britain and Argentina from falling out, an exasperated US imperialism backed Britain, deciding that its robust anti-Soviet ally in Europe was strategically more important.

As the war got underway, the Thatcher government reached an unprecedented peak in the opinion polls on a wave of jingoism, with the gutter press screaming for “our boys” to get the “Argies” as Royal Navy recruitment posters were pinned on factory noticeboards. The Labour Party leaders and trade union bureaucracy embraced this patriotic fervour, supporting the formation of the British Task Force. The victory of Her Majesty’s forces was a defeat for British workers. The message couldn’t have been clearer, first to striking railway workers, when returning troops unfurled a banner saying: “Call off the rail strike, or we’ll call an air strike!”

The “Falklands factor” enabled Thatcher to triumph in a general election in 1983. In her second term she pushed ahead with plans to smash the power of the trade unions. The militant National Union of Mineworkers (NUM), whose struggles had brought down the previous Tory government, was a particular target. The coal miners fought heroically throughout the 1984-85 strike, against an army of cops and the full might of the state. But thanks to the treachery of the trade union bureaucracy and Labour Party politicians, the miners remained isolated against Thatcher. Above all what was necessary to ensure a victory for the miners was for workers in other industries to strike alongside the NUM. But the trade union and Labour “lefts” mouthed words of solidarity, while the right-wing leaders openly and viciously condemned the striking miners, just as they contributed to the chauvinist patriotism around the Falklands war.

Labourite left: From Union Jack “socialists”…

The Labour “left”, led at the time by Tony Benn, opposed the war on patriotic grounds. Benn warned that the Falklands were not worth risking the British fleet over and that such a costly war could “end in tragedy for this country”. The Spartacist League/Britain responded: “It would be a tragedy for the British bosses! The only war worth fighting by the British workers is the class war against their own bourgeoisie. THE MAIN ENEMY IS AT HOME!” (Spartacist Britain no 42, May 1982). Some ostensible “Marxists” at the time managed to stand to the right of Tony Benn. An article in the Socialist Party’s magazine on the 25th anniversary of the war claimed: “We opposed both British imperialism and the Argentinean military dictatorship” (Socialism Today, April 2007). But in 1982 their forebears in the Militant tendency, which subsequently split into what is today the Socialist Party and Socialist Appeal, attacked the Bennite call to withdraw the fleet as a “pacifist blind alley”. And they went foam-flecked against organisations who were for the defeat of British imperialism, denouncing the “monstrous absurdity of the sectarians’ position”, of “calling for the defeat of the Task Force”. The ultimate solution for these utter reformists, who are wedded to the idea that socialism can be implemented beginning with an “Enabling Act” in parliament, was “to force a general election to open the way for the return of a Labour government to implement socialist policies at home and abroad”. For the Militant: “Using socialist methods, a Labour government could rapidly defeat the [Argentine] dictatorship” (Militant International Review, June 1982).

…to cheering the junta

Workers Power also has a sordid history of coming down on the side of the imperialists, from championing the counterrevolutionary Polish Solidarność in the 1980s to hailing the imperialist-backed Libyan rebels last spring. However during the Falklands war Workers Power rallied to the “anti-imperialist” cause…of the Argentine junta. In a 1982 leaflet, Workers Power placed demands on the reactionary military dictatorship, supposedly in order to “expose it”:

“The junta have tried to dress themselves up as real fighters of imperialism. This is a hollow lie. But many believe it to be genuine. The task of Argentinian socialists is to force the junta to take real anti-imperialist measures. They should be forced to nationalise the many multinationals in Argentina; the workers must seize control of those factories and must be armed to mount a real defence against a possible attack.”

— “Victory to the Argentine”

Leftists in Argentina who held a similar position include the pseudo-Trotskyist Nahuel Moreno’s Partido Socialista de los Trabajadores (PST). For the nationalist cause of the Malvinas, the PST declared that they “form part of the military camp of the dictatorship in the fight against the British imperialists”. As the Spartacist League/US wrote at the time: “It is particularly grotesque for the PST to support this ploy by butchers who have murdered more than a hundred of their comrades.” Our article insisted:

“This ultra-reactionary junta will not undertake any anti-imperialist action, however partial. What do they want the islands for? As we have pointed out, they could well turn them into concentration camps for ‘dissidents,’ the luckiest of the desaparecidos — an Argentine Dawson Island. And whom have they named as military governor of the Malvinas? Mario Benjamín Menéndez, who was a principal architect of the junta’s war of extermination against the Argentine left, as well as a notoriously brutal concentration camp commandant.”

— Workers Vanguard no 307, 11 June 1982

A victory for the Argentine junta in this war would have been contrary to the interests of the Argentine working masses, heightening the chauvinist sentiments Galtieri had excited and manipulated in order to defuse a burgeoning class struggle. Our perspective of revolutionary defeatism was vindicated by the events in Argentina following the outcome of the war. Within hours of the fall of Port Stanley to the British imperialists, the chant “¡Se va a acabar, la dictadura militar!” (“The military dictatorship is coming to an end!”) was heard through the streets of Buenos Aires. The humiliating defeat of the Argentine bourgeoisie in the war led directly to the overthrow of the military dictatorship, creating an opening for the construction of a genuinely revolutionary party. But the removal of the junta, in the absence of such a party, has been followed by a series of capitalist crises. Populist nationalism is the major barrier to forging a genuinely revolutionary party in Argentina.

The Spartacist League/Britain fights to build a party committed to burying for good the heritage of British imperialism, its military and the Union Jack. We are proud to have stated at the time:

“The Argentine proletariat must not be taken in by the nationalist diversion over the Falklands, but must continue the struggle to smash Galtieri’s bloody junta. It is the duty of British workers to fight against the Thatcher government’s military adventure to regain a colony, and to fight for their own class power, eradicating the last vestiges of Britain’s sordid and brutal imperialist history. The main enemy is at home!”

— Spartacist Britain no 42, May 1982

Out In The Be-Bop 1960s Night-When Motown Mowed Them Down

Click on the headline to link to a YouTubefilm clip of Percy Sledge performing the classic R&B song, When A Man Loves A Woman.

CD Review

Classic Rock: 1966, various artists, Time-Life Music, 1987

1966, ah, beautiful lost, lost in a haze of bad booze and drugs, 1966. All kinds of music was busting out in the post-Beatles, post vanilla music (Bobby Vee, Bobby Vinton , etc. pretty boy early 1960s music), and post Rolling Stones reverend R&B night. Just a hint of psychedelic, just a hint of new frame rock with that frenetic guitar replacing the piano or drums at the center of the action, maybe putting the sexy saxes in back for while (although to now ears less than one thought), and just a hint of a coming storming out of Motown (records and the city) that a new sound was aborning’. And if I was pressed, hard pressed, no holds barred, no on the one hand and then on the other, straight, up pressed that is the year I would say black-centered music found its national (and maybe world-wide), its big time crossover  niche in the vast sea of cultural gradient musical sounds that make up this immigrant-tinged country.     

No, not the old timey country blues stuff that we craved early in the decade during our love affair folk minute when the world and that the likes of primordial Son House, Skip James, Betsy Smith, Ida Smith (and a bagful of female barrelhouse singers named Smith) 1920s, down the Delta, up from hunger, no electricity make due juke joint Saturday night, hard sweat week at the plantation, whiskey, women and cut blades stuff. Nor that post-World War II mad monk Muddy Waters –Howlin’ Wolf all juiced up and city pretty electric blues Saturday night after hard killing floor factory work week, whiskey, women, and cut blades urban hell-hole glut stuff. And certainly not the 1950s Allen Ginsberg Howl negro streets (before Malcolm came and made black, black hear me, self-respecting and massive hell-raising for justice on those mean black streets the order of the day) be-bop doo-wop rock (jazz too) that exposed (not hipped, just exposed) white kids like me to the heaven sent sound of black-originated music.    

Then came an explosion, no self-pitying from hunger stuff, no do lang, do lang, do do do, la,la, la stuff,  no back porch, segregated  back porch, studio but professional music professionally done. Baby, baby, baby, and oh, yes, oh yes, music that made one think of yes, sex, and other stuff not in a salacious way (well, maybe a little) but as just ordinary okay human existence, warts and all. And no sound put that whole schema together in 1966 better than Percy Sledge’s When A Man Loves A Women. At the end of the night, the dance club, bad booze night you could grab your gal, or grab a gal, and slow dance to some Mason-Dixon and the Line cover, big sexy alto sax playing, soft drums, a little organ, flashes of Gabriel’s trumpet for effect, until the lights came on. And maybe, if the booze didn’t floor you by then, you might just get lucky. Yah, that one was that kind of a song.  Kind of put innocent what is life about, what is sex all about, what are girls all about songs (great 1950s songs, don’t get me wrong) like the Chiffons He’s So Fine and The Falcon’s You’re Fine in the shades.  

Let’s Redouble Our Efforts To Free Private Bradley Manning-President Obama Pardon Bradley Manning -Make Every Town Square In America (And The World) A Bradley Manning Square From Boston To Berkeley to Berlin-Join Us In Davis Square, Somerville –The Stand-Out Is Every Wednesday From 4:00-5:00 PM

Click on the headline to link to the "Private Bradley Manning Petition" website page.

Markin comment:

The Private Bradley Manning case is headed toward a mid- winter trial. Those of us who support his cause should redouble our efforts to secure his freedom. For the past several months there has been a weekly stand-out in Greater Boston across from the Davis Square Redline MBTA stop (renamed Bradley Manning Square for the stand-out’s duration) in Somerville on Friday afternoons but we have since July 4, 2012 changed the time and day to 4:00-5:00 PM on Wednesdays. This stand-out has, to say the least, been very sparsely attended. We need to build it up with more supporters present. Please join us when you can. Or better yet if you can’t join us start a Support Bradley Manning weekly stand-out in some location in your town whether it is in the Boston area, Berkeley or Berlin. And please sign the petition for his release either in person or through the "Bradley Manning Support Network". We have placed links to the "Manning Network"and "Pardon Private Manning Square" website below.

********

Bradley Manning Support Network-http://www.bradleymanning.org/

Manning Square website-http://freemanz.com/2012/01/20/somerville_paper_photo-bradmanningsquare/bradleymanningsquare-2011_01_13/

 

Remarks Made By A Speaker At The Pardon Bradley Manning Rally At Downtown Boston Obama Headquarters-September 6, 2012

 

Welcome one and all and I am glad you could be here for this important struggle.

The Smedley Butler Brigade of Veterans for Peace proudly stands in solidarity with, and defense of, Private Bradley Manning and his fight for freedom from his jailers, the American military.

 

Now usually when I get before a mic or am on a march I am shouting to high heaven about some injustice. Recently I was called strident by someone and when it comes to the struggle against this country’s wars, the struggle for social and economic equality, and for freedom for our political prisoners I am indeed strident.

But I am looking for something today something personally important to me and so I will try to lower my temperature a bit- I want, like you, for President Obama to pardon Bradley Manning so I will be nice, or try to be.

 

Bradley Manning is in a sense the poster person for all of us who have struggled against the wars of the last decade. He stands charged with allegedly leaking information about American war crimes and other matters of public concern to Wikileaks. We, and we are not alone on this, do not see whistleblowing on such activities as a crime but as an elemental humanitarian act and public service.

Private Manning has paid the price for his alleged acts with over 800 days of pre-trial confinement and is now facing life imprisonment for simple acts of humanity. For letting the American people know what they perhaps did not want to know but must know- when soldiers, American soldiers, go to war some awful things can happen and do. He has also suffered torture at the hands of the American government for his brave stand. We have become somewhat inured to foreign national being tortured by the American government at places like Guantanamo and other black hole locales. We have even become somewhat inured to American citizens being tortured and killed by the American government by drones and other methods. But we know, or should know, that when the American government stands accused of torturing an American soldier for not toeing the war line then we private citizens are in serious trouble.

 

Why does Private Manning need a pardon? Did he give away the order of battle or the table of organization for American military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan? No. Did he give away the design for drones and such weapons? No. He allegedly simply blew the whistle on something that is a hard fact of war- war crimes by American soldiers through release of the Collateral Murder tape and what have become known as the Iraq and Afghan War logs. This is what the American government had tried with might and main to cover up. And what needed to be exposed. All talk of bringing democracy, or national building, or having a war to end all wars, and the million other lame excuses for war pale before the hard fact that in the heat of war the real strategy is to kill and burn and let god sort out the innocent from the guilty.

 

That is what Private Manning exposed. I, and I am sure many other veterans from previous wars who saw or knew of such things and did nothing about it, are glad that such things were exposed. If for no other reason Private First Class Bradley Manning deserves presidential pardon for his service. To insure that event we urge everybody to ramp up their efforts in behalf of Bradley by signing here or online at the Bradley Manning Support Network site the petition to the Secretary of the Army for his release and to call the White House, the telephone number is listed on the flyer we are handing out, and demand that President Obama pardon Private Manning.

 

Today’s event is the start of our fall campaign of behalf of Private Manning who at this time is expected to go to trial next February. We want to build toward that trial, assuming President Obama (or President Romney) has not pardoned him by then. We have been holding weekly stand-outs in Davis Square in Somerville outside the MBTA Red Line stop Wednesdays from 4:00to 5:00 PM and urge you to join us. Or better yet start a Free Bradley Manning stand-out in your own town square. Thank you.

 

The Struggle For A Labor Party In The United States-Part Two- The Efforts In The 1990s

Markin comment:

 

In part one of this two-part series I noted in the Introduction that I had originally intended to solely highlight the historical attempts to form a labor party in the United States going back through the annuals of earlier labor history, especially the efforts by the early American Communist Party and the early Trotskyist Socialist Workers Party, and to place little emphasis on later efforts such as those that occurred around the Labor Party question in the 1990s.  After some debate with others interested in getting a fuller sense of the over efforts I have placed the following up for discussion. The rationale for this effort is that today’s young labor militants and other pro-labor allies might relate better to more contemporary efforts as we once again are painfully made aware of the need for such a party in today’s political environment and now have an audience interested in such efforts. In either my original conception or my current one we need to struggle for that workers party that fights for a workers government, and fight like demons for it.     

**********

 

The Founding National Convention and Issues Around Support For Labor Candidates

 

In June1996 a number of trade unionists and their allies met to form an organization that would fight for a labor party in the United States. The party was formed by the United Mine Workers, International Longshore and Warehouse Union, American Federation of Government Employees, California Nurses Association, and hundreds of other local labor unions. Backed by those labor unions and hundreds of endorsing and affiliating 300 other labor bodies, the party stood 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.

Membership at one point reached about 5,000.

 

 

 

 

The Party was based on the unions because that was (is) 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 tried to get the unions to commit their resources to the Labor Party instead.

 

Moreover reflecting the steep decline in trade union membership, especially the private sector and the lack of unionization amount the most oppressed layers of the working class the labor party held itself  open to all working class people, whether in a union or not. Initially the Labor Party decided not to run any independent labor militant candidates until 1999 at the earliest. The Labor Party’s leaders felt that the Party needed to be much stronger before it could start to run for office. 

 

Many Party members, however, felt that running candidates in carefully selected and well-prepared campaigns would have been a good way of reaching new people and training the troops for actions. From the beginning a dispute over the Party's running of candidates arose with many of the official unions totally opposed to running candidates that might cause the defeat of their normal Democratic allies. Smaller locals and left union activists on the other had pushed for a clean break with the Democratic Party.

 

This issue was debated internally for years until 1999 when the Party's leadership agreed to some endorsements of Labor Party members running. In 2001 the Labor Party endorsed labor sponsored independent candidates in San Francisco and Ohio local elections. After the 2000 elections even symbolic support dripped away. The future of the party remains uncertain, particularly after the 2002 death of Tony Mazzocchi, the founding national organizer. All of the founding unions continued to actively support Democratic Party candidates.

 

As was to be expected of any pro-working class formation organized leftist militants including socialists, communists, and Trotskyists supported, held offices in and worked to increase membership in party as well as provide wealth of different programs for labor militants to argue about, or adhere to. Among the main socialist supporters of the party were those organized around the newspaper Justice (now Socialist Alternative, affiliated internationally with the Committee for Workers International (CWI). Supporters of JUSTICE helped create the Labor Party in an attempt to turn it into a real force in American politics.  At the time it was felt that the Labor Party might become a major player in U.S. politics, a party that fought for the independence of the working class from the two major parties

This grouping also was among those who felt that the Labor Party should run candidates sooner rather than later.

 

From a socialist perspective this grouping (and others) believed that the things the Labor Party was trying to achieve—such as good-paying jobs for all—would require an economy that is completely different from the capitalist economy we have now.  Also, the large banks and major corporations have done well by this system and they will fight like hell to keep things going their way.  They were working with other socialists and activists in the Labor Party who felt 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 a plan with democratic control of the economy by working people.

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

Local Labor Party Efforts In Ohio

 

The development of the U.S. Labor Party, as was to be expected from an amorphous organization that was not on sure footing in regard to its attitude toward running union militants in elections counterposed to the Democrats and was a loose affiliation of various tendencies was done in fits and starts. Many local efforts were ahead of the national organization in fielding local labor candidates. The following case in Ohio points to the nature of those local efforts.

 

On September 20, 1997 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, the new organization hammered out state by-laws, established an organizing plan, and debated political resolutions.

 

The 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.  Supporters of the socialist organization grouped around the newspaper Justice mobilized 14 people. 

 

As to be expected 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 the organization must examine the complete undemocratic nature of the American capitalist 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 point was also raised that the LP must begin to seriously address the question of whether this scheme 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-the idea of a democratically worker -controlled central planning system. The rhetorical question was posed - What would be the Labor Party’s response if it took power and capital “went on strike”? The delegates agreed that this key question needed additional future debate and examination.

 

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 the party has 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.  This proved to be the most memorable part of the convention.

 

 

Supporters of Justice strenuously argued that elections are the only platform with a large enough scope to build a party of several hundred thousand members.  The then current strategy was limited to a narrow field of trade-union activists.  This layer now knows of the LP, and many have joined.  How can the LP reach a wider layer?  The only way is by standing in elections (in selected areas where the party 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.

 

**********

Local Efforts In New York

 

As it turned out, not unexpectedly given the historic roots of previous labor party efforts, the New York State  Labor Party  organization became the flagship for the national organization  and there again the convention that established the state organization met and discussed issues similar to those raised in the Ohio discussions mentioned above earlier in the year. In November of 1997 120 delegates and observers met in Schenectady to launch the New York State Labor Party. The launch of the state body on November 7-9^th attracted thirty union locals and a number 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.”

 

 After debate the New York gathering overwhelmingly passed a resolution (see below) calling on the next full convention of the Labor Party, scheduled for Pittsburgh of November 1998, to pursue “a viable electoral strategy” and to establish clear “organizational and political criteria” for running candidates. 

 

 

At the time this resolution was considered an important breakthrough to get the national organization to move on the electoral front.  As one delegate commented, “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 still liked 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.

 

 

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 had endorsed the re-election of Republican mayor Rudolph Giuliani, the launch of the New York State Labor Party was a clear message away from normal bourgeois politics.  The new President of the New York LP, CWA 1180 President Arthur Cheliotes, 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.”

 

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.

 

**********

The Second National Convention In Pittsburgh

 

The 2^nd national convention of the U. S. Labor Party addressed many of the same issues as the inaugural Cleveland convention and the two local conventions, Ohio and New York mentioned above.

 

As the Second Convention approached labor militants took stock of what had been accomplished in the previous two years. The June 1996 launch of the Labor Party in Cleveland had been 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 also a personal triumph for Oil Workers union leader Tony Mazzocchi and a small army of trade unionists, rank and file as well as leadership, who brought the Labor Party into existence.  The 1400 delegates adopted the Party’s Constitution which remained an important experience for all those who took part in that political event.  At the time, Justice supporters (now Socialist Alternative) 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)

 

However shortly thereafter 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 was 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?  There have been moments when even the most determined militants wondered if the whole thing was just going nowhere.  Over time it had become clear that a convention does not necessarily made a party and that there were no magic formulas that meet the challenge of building a mass working class party in this country.

 

The Labor Party’s First Constitutional Convention (Pittsburgh) had attracted the participation of considerably more unions than showed up for the founding convention, and a greater number of elected delegates, which was cause for momentarily optimism.  Over 1,350 delegates had registered, a figure that reflected both the ongoing appeal of the Party and the dogged determination of its active supporters.  It was also encouraging that many union locals were affiliating to the Party, and not as simple endorsers.  This meant there was a growing degree of commitment to the process, although much work needed to be done to bring the Labor Party to the shop stewards and rank and file of these critical locals. As one militant commented at the time-“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.”

 

The union locals and internationals that had made it to Pittsburgh to support the Labor Party were standing up for working class political independence, and their numbers were growing.   This meant  that it was necessary to set 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.

 

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. 

 

 

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.

 

All the signs indicated that the Labor Party at the convention would adopt criteria for running its own candidates.  Justice supported the Electoral Committee’s report.  However, this group recommended 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 Pittsburgh convention takes place 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 said 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, cannot 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.

 

*********

A Post-Mortem On The Pittsburgh Convention

 

The most burning question confronting delegates to the Labor Party’s second national convention held in Pittsburgh in 1998 was: 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) had previously focused primarily on getting unions to endorse and affiliate to the Party.  LP workplace committees and community chapters had recruited new members by campaigning for the right to a job at a living wage and by organizing solidarity to local struggles.   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.

 

 

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.

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

New York City Labor Party Woes

 

Troubles in the key New York City Labor party presaged further difficulties:

 

 

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

 

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) that in 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 to 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 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 who 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 has 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 for 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.

 

New York Metro Chapter Suspended by State Executive Committee-How NOT to Build the Labor Party

 

In May 2000, 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 neither 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 not 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.

 

 

 

Why the Labor Party Should Support Nader In 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, then why do the LP leaders steadfastly refuse to seriously run candidates?  Because the leadership of the major unions affiliated to the LP refused 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.

 

The Death Knell -Labor Party’s 3^rd National Convention

The Fight for a Workers’ Party Continues -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.