[Marxism] Labor party/underpinnings

[Nat Weinstein <nat9sylvia@xxxxxxx>]

This is a response to a post on the swp list by David Walters which
follows my comments immediately below.
I believe the subject matter belongs on this list as well:
* * *
It's impossible for someone like me to respond to what I think are  the
many misconceptions that can be expected in an all-inclusive political
forum open to anyone. I will only point out why David's stance
toward how the very small number of union conscious trade union
radicals who in these modern-day "Labor Party Clubs" had not even
paid their dues as serious trade union activists.

I believe that it is a mistake that parallels one made by Frank Lovell
and adopted  by the Barnes faction  of the SWP in 1977 or around that
time--what Frank called "labor party clubs."  This was the notion that
the very small and highly inexperienced SWPers recently colonized in
the industrial unions could have realistically taken on such a task was
not even an adventure, it was a delusion.

I had  tried to point out to comrades at the NC plenum where it had first
been introduced that it was a mistake to organize not only a propaganda
campaign out of the blue; that is, there was no evidence of such a
 movement stirring inside the unions we had colonized, much less
elsewhere. But the proposal for the "labor party clubs" slogan went
beyond  a  propaganda offensive which is legitimate  from time to time.
 It  was also an agitational and even more far-fetched, an ACTION
campaign for a labor party, to boot! But  there  was no evidence that
 such a movement actually existed. And to think that the party at that
time could initiate such a campaign was a delusion. I don't blame Frank
too much because he was trying his best to find some focus of activity
for the comrades. But it was a mistake.

Remember that the SWP had never attempted in the thirties and early
forties, when the unions were on the offensive such a momentous
campaign. Remember too, that the party, at that time,  had a highly
experienced trade union cadre headed by comrades like Cannon, Dobbs,
the Dunne brothers, Karl Skogland and so many others including many
who had later broke with the party along with Cochrane, who were also
hardnosed class-conscious fighters and leaders.

(David and other comrades on this list who were on the NC at the time
will remember how my words of caution as one who had given CRITICAL
support, again with the emphasis on SUPPORT to the Barnes and new
youth leadership at the time were received. In a word, they did not
 answer my argument. Instead, they simply dismissed me as wanting
to change the party line on our support for independent labor political
action, which at that time and even now would likely take the form of
a labor party.

But David and those who are even more wrong in giving critical support
to the Greens, don't really understand our class struggle approach to the
unions. It doesn't BEGIN with formal independent political action, that is,
it's ELECTORAL  expression--although it is not EXCLUDED. It historically
and logically begins at the points of production and transportation--against
the boss at the very center of the class struggle on the job!

One final word before ending. I just heard news that the TWU rank and file
 rejected the contract virtually imposed on NY Cities transit workers.
What should take precedence in the discussions on this list should be the big
question of the focus for intervention of proletarian revolutionists in what
is clearly another piece of evidence along with the events among GM/Delphi
UAW workers and other places that the prolonged period of relative worker
passivity imposed on them by the unholy alliance of bosses and bureaucrats...
and their wholly owned government...is coming to an end!

Comradely, generically speaking,
Nat
------------------------------------------------

> David let you give you my experience with the LP and Greens, since i
> have with both. I was Chair for a few years of the SF LP. The SF LP,
> like many of the local chapters, was often the killing fields of left
> groups seeking to manouver for control, etc. But, because Nat's
> comrades spent an amazingly short time in the LP, they viewed it only
> in the 'macro' sense: a few local meetings and then two conventions
> (the Founding Convention and then the first Constitutional
> covnention). The dynamics and discussion locally and nationally was
> much more multi-dimentional than most on the left (as in
> most 'socialists' who abstained from LP activities) saw on the
> surface. That's another discussion. But...
>
> While active in the LP, we worked with Greens on several issues. The
> first point is that the main thing is not to be sectarian toward
> groupings of activists (such as GP activists) *simply* because they
> are in the GP or express the very kind of confused politics that most
> Greens put out.
>
> In 2000/2001 we initiated the "Labor Task Force for Public Power"
> which had local union support, rank and file support and was composed
> of many LP members including our Chapter of the LP which was the core
> group. The purpose lf teh LTFPP was to support an initiative that
> would disenfranchise Pacific Gas and Electric from their owner ship
> of the electric grid in San Francisco, that is, municipalization. We
> were of course, opposed in this by the local Democratic party machine
> and the company union (which is my union) which represents me and my
> fellow workers here.
>
> We (power plant workers, etc,) gave extensive workshops on what the
> industry is, how it generates power, etc to local GP, and other
> activsts (one of whom is now Green Party SF City Council people: Ross
> Makarimi and Chris Daly, the leading housing activist in the city).
> We spoke as LP members in front of union locals. We swung the Labor
> Council in SF to break with their 50 year opposition to public power
> (and I got thrown off the Labor Council because of it right before my
> own local dissaffiliated with it!).  All this in the midst of power
> outages caused by the California electrical power crisis. Truly 'fun'
> and exciting times.
>
> We came within 500(!!!) of votes of winning the proposition. This was
> parallel to the first Labor party endorsed candidate for the
> Municipal Utility District that ran on a slate of Labor Council
> endorsed candidates (which included SFLC members, most of whom were
> registered Democrats, one of who received endorsement from a
> Democratic Party club) including one leading Black trade unionist who
> was running as a Green. Now, the MUD would not of been like a regular
> gov't body. It is much more akin to something like a Rent Board or
> other task-driven community board. But we worked closely with the GP
> on this campaign.
>
> It did not require the LP to endorse any other candidate, including
> those on the Labor Slate for the MUD. But it was a worth while
> experience in 'real' community politics under real issues
> (municipalization). And we were able to influence the GP on some
> issues, like support for single payer health care where Medea
> Benjamin adopted the LP section on health care in total.
>
> Having said all that, for the first time the LP ran a candidate,
> Robin David, an ex-SWP and recently retired IBEW Local 1245 member,
> power plant worker, etc. The LP did nothing nationally to support our
> campaign, but we built a full-time local union based campaign out of
> the Teacher Union headquarters and had dozens and dozens of
> volunteers. The national Labor Party blew it big time. They may be
> making up for it in South Carolina. We will see. We split the Green
> Party politically because a wing of the GP got Medea Benjamin to run
> AGAINST Robin for the same district of the MUD, thus effectively
> splitting the broad based 'not-the-democratic-party left vote'. They
> ran a campaign that attacked the idea of 'Big Labor' getting involved
> in electoral politics!
>
> Medea  and her supporters in the Green Party became a leading Anybody
> But Bush "Demo-Green" during the last Presidential election.
>
> So, at the level of union politics, anyway, I'm all for collaborating
> with with Greens, etc. I don't think there needs to be any special
> relationship outside of specific campaigns around specific issues.
>
> David Walters

________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism