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
7-9th 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 2nd 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 3rd 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.
