Labor Party

MD575151 at aol.com MD575151 at aol.com
Sun May 12 11:17:37 MDT 1996


In response to Malecki...

In response to weather he supports the LPA he writes;

>I am not for or against a labour party on principle. The question is what
>program the labor party has.

  The labor party does not yer have any program yet.  That will be decided in
June.  The program will be meaningless unless socialists are there to try and
point it in the right direction.

 He writes;

>The struggle between the Bolsheviks and the
>mensheviks was just a struggle around program and struggle. As i see it, the

>labor party people are in a process of trying to exclude all of those who
>are Leninists.. That hardly creates the conditions for a labor party or
>united front. It is a forum for the reformists to find a space to the left
>of the democratic party..

  I know several Leninists who are mambers of the LPA.  They have not yet
been excluded.  They will continue to fight for a real labor party untill
they do get expelled (or whatever the term is). If we give the labor party a
chance, and it does end up a hopeless mess of reformism, then I will agree
that it must be abandoned.  But lets not kill it before we have a chance to
help it.

In response to my saying that we must build a solid base to foster a
revolutionary proletariat, Malecki writes;

>A solid base of what? reformists. It is not the workers, it is the
>conditions that at present stop the development of a mass revolutionary
>party.

   It's not the workers?
               These are four of the international unions that I know of who
officially support the LPA;
               Oil, chemical and atomic workers international union, AFL-CIO
               United electronical, radio and machine workers union,
               Brotherhood of maintenance of way employees, AFL-CIO
               International longshoremen's and warehousemen's union, AFL-CIO

    And hundreds of other AFL-CIO local unions, district councils, lodges and
regional bodies officialy support the LPA.  We must work to keep these
workers, and add to them, while we boot the reformists.

I had commented that the workers in the US have not yet attained real class
awareness.
In reponse he writes;

>Are you saying that workers in the united state do not know they are
>workers?

    Of course workers are aware that they work.  But, I do not think that the
majority of workers view themselves as a force that opposes the way the
capitalist system works.  Unions and strikes help show that their interests
oppose that of their bosses.  A labor party would show worker's that their
interests oppose that of the bosse's two parties.  If you think that US
workers already know that, then tell me why the AFL-CIO and millions of
workers vote democrat.  Perhaps it is because their is no  other real choice?
 Perhaps because they truly beleive the democrats fight for workers?  Either
way, a labor party will foster a class conscience attitude.  It is a step in
the right direction.

Here Malecki has a point;

>The workers will become aware of their class motives in every strike
>or whatever comes up. It usually is expressed in a very clear way. A mass
>labor party does not mean that the class will all of a sudden realise their
>interests take a look around the world and you will see concrete proof of
>that.

   I agree.  The labor party will not magically spark a revolutionary fire.
   But, it is a step up from strikes.  The workers will now enter the
political arena.  I know you think that is a good thing.

I am not really sure what Malecki means when he writes;

>And i get the feeling that you want to place someplace between the
>revolutionary class, the workers and the revolutionary vanguard party which
>sometime in the future will go all the way.

   I don't really understant this.  Between the revolutionary class and who?
 If you are saying that I want to seperate the revolutionary class (the
workers) from the vanguard you are wrong.  I do realize that there will be
seperation between the two, because the vanguard is the most advanced
component of the revolutionary class.  So, by definition there will be a
distinction between the two.  But this seperation should be as minimul as
possable.  Ideally I would like to see all the workers be communists and
fighting in the vanguard, but this is not realistic. The workers who are not
a part of the vanguard should be a part of something.  I would rather
something be the Labor Party of the US then the Democratic Party.  The
vanguard is not an elitist class, it is the proletariat--the full time
revolutionary proletariat.  Perhaps this is not the questions you were
asking.

Here it seems that Malecki wants to jump ahead strait to a revolutionary
situation.

>Well those parties were doomed
>already in 1914 when Lenin broke ruthlessly with the reformists on the
>question of the first world war.. Why is it neccessary to do this once again

>in the United States?

       Why is it necessary in the US?  Because the US is not 1914 Russia.
 The US workers have not taken the step of forming a party to break with.
 The US lacks revolutionary tension.

I had commented that we should not wait around for the perfect labor party,
it would never happen on its own.  In response he comments;

>
>Who said anybody is waiting around. Both the third international and the
>fourth international are proof of that. Why go back to the time of the
>second international. We have been there already..

  You forget that socialists had to fight to form the internationals.  The
internationals did not appear from thin air.  They also had to fight to keep
them from going reformist, which some did.
   The first, second, third, and forth international have all passed away.
 It would be great if we could start from the most advanced point that they
ever reached, but that is not how this works.  We must start over again,
build labor parties, then form an international.  If you think that it is
possable to form a powerful international then please start one.  Sign me up.


I commented that even if the Labor Party fails us, at least socialists will
be remembered for being alongside the workers, not on the sidelines.  In
response;

>According to the latest developments at least here in Sweden they will be
>remembered as those who with there credit cards and parachute pension plans
>stole everything they could of the welfare state and then joined the
>bougeoisie in watching the welfare state sink on the horizon.

   I am not aware of the latest developments in Sweden.
   Who are " they"?  Do you mean the socialists that I refered to.  We are
the socialists.  Are you saying that if we fight alongside our fellow workers
and urge them to form a real proletarian labor party that they will remember
us as you above described?  I would disagree with you.  If we just sit back
and watch the party deteriorate the attitude will be-- "what did the
socialists ever do for us?"  If we fight alongside them the attitude will be,
"The socialists fought alongside us.  They wanted to help create a real labor
party."

  The majority of workers are tired of choosing the lesser of two evils.  It
is not realistic to think that they will all of a sudden rally behind any
real socialist organization such as Labor Militant or the SWP.  A labor party
is a step in the right direction.  No international has ever been powerful
here in the US.  We cannot start from the top.  We must start somewhere.

Respectfully,
              ---Mike Dean


     --- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---




More information about the Marxism mailing list