Comrade Charles,
This article I believe will answer most of your questions and maybe even create more!
I believe it will definately answer your question regarding the "danger" of sucumbing to bourgeois ideology. Neither LRNA not the Labor Party are bourgeois organizations, they are highly revolutionary working-class organizations that have risen above bourgeois ideology and developed a revolutionary working-class consciousness and it is indisputeably in line with Marxism-Leninism that as such, we must work in such working-class organizations in order to raise their class consciousness into a complete socialist consciousness.
Struggle for third parties
Political parties in the United States, like political parties everywhere else, represent the interests of classes of people. Political parties with the most power represent the social class with the most power. In the U.S., the scene of one of the most important bourgeois revolutions in world history, the American Revolution of 1776, the political parties represent the ruling class, i.e. the class of wealthy capitalists whose control over the society is felt increasingly everywhere. The Constitution of the U.S., in "guaranteeing" the equal rights of every citizen, has made it appear as if every decision of the ruling class has been a decision of the nation as a whole without regard to specific class interest. Likewise every extension of political democracy has been coupled with an extension and consolidation of the imperialist rape of the backward people. As in all imperialist countries, the extension of democracy has been the reflection of the extension of exploitation. It is a short propagandistic hop from this reality to the notion that the defense of democracy is the defense of imperialism.
Since, in such a capitalist "democracy", there is the belief that there can be "national choices" which are choices of masses of individuals and not of classes based on class interest, the masses of people have been satisfied with a choice between two representatives of the ruling class, Republican and Democrat.
The choice between two representatives of capital, however, is not simply a means to dupe the working class into believing it is democratically having a voice in determining what's best for itself and "the nation". The ruling class, like every other entity, is the unity of contradiction. The political struggle within the capitalist class is the reflection of contradictory interests and can only be resolved, basically, by the relative economic and hence political strength of the contestants. However, the resolution of the contradiction to some extent depends upon gathering to one's side the sentiments, morality and votes of the masses of the people. This demands above all, that no political parties be allowed, save the parties of the ruling class. The contradictory elements of the capitalist class, the financier as opposed to the industrial capitalist, though they may disagree on many issues, as we shall soon see, are agreed on the proposition that the working class should not possess its own political party.
There have been many third party movements in U.S. history. None have succeeded in establishing political independence for the working class. An obvious question: what is there about the current political and economic situation which has made the third party process a reality and what is there about that situation which makes the inevitable third party susceptible to working class leadership?
Objective factors
The United States has clearly reached the end of the post-World War II economic boom that was based on the war's terrible destruction of Europe. The reconstruction of European capitalism tied the European nations, as debtors, even more tightly to the U.S. financiers. Of greater historical importance is the fact that the weakening of the ruling industrial and mercantile interests in Europe, the pressures of the working class, and the gigantic political prestige of the Soviet Union forced Europe's ruling class to make an historic compromise with U.S. imperialism. This compromise, hard fought in France and welcomed in Germany resulted in the rise of the European financier over the industrial-mercantile interests and the consequent transformation of Asia and Africa from direct colonies to neocolonies. The various spheres of imperialist domination disappeared with the emergence of a modern world imperialism, led and dominated by United States imperialism.
Under such conditions, the economic contradictions of capital operated ever more swiftly. The means of production have never been revolutionized at such a dizzying pace. The backward countries that had, before the war, been only commodity consumers, rapidly became commodity producers as the struggle for cheaper and cheaper labor and greater and greater production inevitably ended up with cheaper and cheaper commodities and a greater and greater polarization of wealth and poverty leading to the presently developing economic crisis.
During the past period, as far as the ruling classes were concerned, there has been so much for so many that contradictory interests (such as the banker wanting higher interest and the industrialist wanting lower interest, or around the contradictory demand of tariffs) that their struggle could not sharpen to the point of political struggles. Needless to say, the lack of struggle within the ruling class precluded the possibility of arousing the masses down below.
Today imperialism has reached the outer limits of its economic expansion and indeed is experiencing an economic crisis of historical moment. Commodities glut the markets of the capitalist world while the United Nations estimates that one third of the world's people border on starvation an unemployment rate of 40-50%. The infusion of vast sums of capital into the market place to keep commodities and capital circulating has been played out as a workable solution to the crisis, the debt ceilings of most developing nations having long ago been reached, the squeeze on the workers of these nations long ago having surpassed the possible.
The economic crisis has created a situation where the various interests within the ruling class have boiled over. The result has been the disintegration of the Democratic Party, the dramatic rise of the fascist danger, and the revival of interest in a third party.
Bourgeois Parties
The history of the bourgeois parties indicates the pitfalls of all previous third party movements. We will now examine that history because the emergence of a truly independent political party of labor depends upon historical clarity.
In pre-Civil War politics, the ruling party, the Democratic Party, was the spokesman for the slave owners and the commercial groupings that served them. The infant Republican Party, growing out of the Kansas Relief Organizations, out of the loose groupings in support of John Brown and the organizations of the yeoman farmers, was quickly co-opted by the rising industrial class who was denied a real voice in governing the country which by 1860 they economically ruled. (Recall that one of John Brown's most ardent supporters was Alan Pinkerton.)
At the end of the Civil War, the Republican Party, the industrial interests of the country, was in firm control. However, the war had been such a prolonged, destructive, and expensive one that decades of economic development were crowded into three or four years. The expenses of the war created such a gigantic amount of money that by the end of the war the financier was already coming into his own and was struggling for a political apparatus through which to express his interests.
The nearly defunct Democratic Party provided that vehicle. Wall Street, on the basis of the "solid South," moved independently into the national political arena. But by waving "the bloody shirt" and by relying on the social benefits of the great industrial expansion and "manifest destiny," i.e., the extension of the national borders westward, the Republicans maintained firm control of the nation's politics.
The multitude of minor parties that came forth as anti-monopoly coalitions expressed the fact that power in the Republican Party was rapidly slipping into the hands of the monopolies, while the petty bourgeoisie was left without economic or political power.
Monopolization of wealth, followed by the nationalization of wealth, is the inexorable logic of social development. Anti-monopoly coalitions, then as now, are historically reactionary groupings that served the monopolists as safety valves for social discontent.
It should be noted that the several political apparatuses that developed on the basis of the militant trade union movement of the 1870s and 80s were dealt with quickly. Their leaders were executed and their cadre jailed or frightened into silence.
Post-Civil War history shows that a political party of the working class is not possible simply because the objective conditions are present. In order to have a political party of the class, the self-consciousness of the worker is the primary and fundamental ingredient.
Populism, which began in the 1860s and continued into the 1930s, provided the form for the struggle for a third party. But the strug to break up monopolies is reactionary; nationalization is the only progressive way to struggle against them. The rulers of the country, necessarily the propagandists of the country, have made heroes of the Populists, while portraying the revolutionaries as traitors and reactionaries. For a third party to represent the interests of the working class, it must be ideologically independent of the bourgeoisie. As it is, there are a thousand and one strings that tie each and every "third party" movement to the bourgeoisie.
Things change, and each change in history is the opportunity for new efforts. The objective impulse toward a third party that is underway today in several parts of the country is an expression of crisis and changing relationships. Whether or not this new motion becomes another reactionary "anti-monopoly" coalition, or the beginning of a broadly based, independent political party of labor depends on clarity.
The current situation is reminiscent of the period from 1947 to 1956. Is it the same thing?
No it is not. What are the differences? It's true that especially from 1947 to 1952 there was a certain splitting within the Democratic and Republican parties. This splitting allowed for the rise of two opposite motions - the development of the Progressive Party around Henry A. Wallace, and the fascist movement around Senator Joe McCarthy.
The McCarthy movement was the result of Wall Street's takeover of the majority wing of the Republican Party. This was accomplished by the election of Wall Street's spokesman, General Eisenhower. Joe McCarthy was a fascist. He was fascism's major spokesman, the mouthpiece of the industrialists who very well understood that the victory of Wall Street within the Republican Party meant that the Wall Street imperialists would have to bribe the workers into support of their international policies. Such bribery would cut into the ability of the industrialists to control the exploitation of the workers here.
Wallace Movement
The Wallace movement, which consolidated into the Progressive Party, was the final effort of the Roosevelt coalition to reassert its leadership of the Democratic Party. What was the Roosevelt coalition?
This coalition arose during the first four years of Roosevelt's administration and was consolidated during the latter 1930s. Hitler's rise to power, the construction of the fascist axis, and German expansion beyond their borders did not threaten the interests of U.S. industrialists, but it was an immediate and serious threat to Wall Street's interests. Beyond the borders of Germany, within the grasp of Hitler's armies, lay Polish coal, Czech industry, Rumanian oil, and the entire wealth of Eastern Europe which was being milked by Wall Street through French and British imperialism.
It was not possible to fight German fascism with American fascism. That would create the perfect revolutionary situation. Roosevelt had to come forth as the most democratic spokesman and the U.S. had to become the arsenal of democracy, mainly, although not exclusively, in words. But there had to be some deeds too. Consequently, minor concessions were made to every democratic, anti-fascist force in the country. The New Deal was the banner. The industrial proletariat got the CIO; the aged got the Social Security Act" the destitute received welfare; the youth got the National Youth Administration; the Negro people received the Civil Rights Commission. In short, Wall Street allowed for the coalescence of democratic forces in order to mobilize the country for the war against Hitler.
Roosevelt's death, the end of the war and the break up of the Roosevelt coalition were coincidental. It was not the death of Roosevelt that broke up this coalition. The coalition broke up because the imniediate aims of Wall Street had been achieved. The post-war tactic was to turn from the position of parlor pick socialism to utilize the might of the U.00. to capture the prize of Europe for Wall Street, to drive back the working class, isolate the Soviet Union, drive back the Negro people and capitalize on the results of the war. Now Wall Street needed the Marshall Plan, the Cold War, and the Truman Doctrine. In short, the trick was turned. Wall Street no longer had any use for the Roosevelt coalition. Any movement that arose outside the major parties, and hence without an economic base, was doomed to failure. In short, Wall Street dumped Wallace and the Roosevelt Coalition.
The Wallace effort arose to battle the Truman win- of the Democratic Party, opposing those issues that would tighten Wall Stree-t's international hold and work against the interests of the petty bourgeoisie and some sections of labor. Wallace's main efforts were against the Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan. Since Wall Street had such international maneuvering room, the efforts of both McCarthy and Wallace had no chance of success.
So we see that every third party effort in history came as the result of the consolidation and expansion of monopoly, and the third party effort was the anguished cry of a section of the bourgeoisie cast aside by history and crushed by the logic of finance capital.
What is the fundamental difference today? It lies in the fact that imperialism cannot expand without war against the USSR. Consequently, the struggle between the wings of finance capital is growing ever sharper. The export of the means of production to the world's hinterlands has drawn all humanity into the world political arena. Fundamentally, the capitalist would just as soon sharpen the exploitation in the U.S. as sharpen it in Zaire. It is only political considerations that prevent him from doing this. Yet these political considerations are being eroded by the export of industry. The objective conditions for the development of political consciousness of the workers are maturing.
We must examine the role of the labor movement and the role of the Communist Party in the third party movement of the past and indicate the correct position for the coming period.
While admitting the weakness of hindsight, it is necessary for us to abstract the lessons of the past. Hindsight shows us that the idea of the twin parties of Wall Street, the slogan put forth by the CP, is factually incorrect. This concept has led to a thirty year period of confusion. Urging the population to vote for the lesser evil of these "twins" has been a block to proletarian self consciousness.
Secondly, the CP has reduced the Leninist description of fascism as the dictatorship of the most reactionary section of finance capital down to the subjective. They group the meanest and most warmongering individuals and call them a section of finance capital. They do not dare examine why and what is the most imperialist section. This intellectual dishonesty opens the door to a set of errors that not only helped destroy such real third party movements as the Minnesota Farmer Labor Party, but attached the labor movement to Wall Street Democrats in the struggle against the Republicans. The failure to take advantage of the contradiction between Republicans and Democrats, in order to develop the independence of the working class, has cost the revolutionary movement dearly.
The Minnesota Farmer Labor Party was the best that this country has produced. Such far-sighted socially conscious leaders as Governors Floyd Olson and Elmer Benson and Representative John Bernard for years steered their Party on a course of independence that resulted in the near demise of the Minnesota Democratic Party. It was the incorrect understanding of the tactics of the United Front by the CP that ended up with Hubert Humphrey, the Communist Party and Eugene McCarthy teamed up together to force the independent Farmer Labor Party to merge with the Democrats under the personal dictatorship of Hubert Humphrey.
With the Progressive Party under Henry Wallace, the CP showed its inability to really mobilize the people of this country. A real communist party is the organization of the practical leaders of the proletariat. The CP, although an organization of influential individuals, never was the vanguard of the proletariat. Harry Truman showed that his section of the Democratic Party in fact represented such a vanguard not in the realm of ideas or theory, but in fact. This was so because the practical leaders of the proletariat were in the Democratic Party and had been won over by the policies of Wall Street and its bribery.
The projection of the CP for the Progressive Party was the concept of a mass party. This of course violates the fundamental Marxist understanding that the masses are made up of classes and that there is only one thoroughly progressive class. The idea of a mass party rests on the belief that there are still some progressive reforms left under imperialism. The past 30 years prove the incorrectness of such beliefs.
Every piece of reform legislation is immediately utilized by the capitalists to further shackle the labor movement and the movement of the nationalities. The do-gooders of the CP, having created their god, the "anti-monopoly coalition" and having worshipped it for 25 years, now fear to denounce this reactionary, populist fetish of their imagination.
The fact is, that capitalism has reached such a point that its existence depends upon increasing the exploitation of the workers of the world. No political law can undo an economic law. One "law" lies in the realm of the subjective; it's the result of the mental activity of men. The economic law is the objective force within the economy. It lies beyond the reach of man and his desires to reform it. Reform is only possible in the social characteristics of a social system. It is not possible in the qualitative aspects. It is clear today that these social characteristics, national oppression, poverty, poor education, etc., can no longer be dealt with in the arena of reform. Reform, as pointed out by Marx, is the result of a revolution.
The summation has to be that any serious third party today must be a pro-socialist, non-socialist party based above all in the breadth of labor (not simply trade union) movement. The CP concept of labor and the Negro people, aside from being chauvinistically insulting, is incorrect. The most important social change -n this country over the past forty years has been the proletarianization of its some 35 million Negroes. The semi-feudal form of exploitation has long disappeared. The Negro people represent one of the most politically advanced and progressive sections of the labor movement and especially the trade union movement.
Certainly the emerging third party movement must in fact be an alliance of the labor movement and the national liberation movements, especially the movement of the Negro people. But this is a vastly different concept than "labor and the Negro people." The Negro people are, in the majority, a part of the workforce, while the Negro people's liberation movement is composed of all classes, except the comprador bourgeoisie. The CP attempts to get off the horns of this contradiction by calling for all class unity of the Negro people's movement.
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. And in a country of militant but politically backward people, it is simple for half-baked do-gooders and liberals to pass themselves off as communists and have people accept anti-communist ideas as communist. One of the prereallisites of a real party of labor is the intensive struggle to raise the intellectual, scientific, and political level of the masses. The workers hunger for this sort of education and communists must not be afraid to give it to them.
The Trade Unions and the Third Party
The role of the trade union movement in this regard has been a sorry one. The labor misleaders have never moved from the reactionary position of reward your friends and punish your enemies. This slogan is an essentially imperialist one since it is an open invitation to bribery. It is the slogan that ties the unions to the Democratic Party. The representatives of the industrialists can never be the friends of labor. However, the financier, removed as he is from direct exploitation of labor and dependent upon the working class to help enforce his foreign policy, is always the "friend." This means that the trade unions simply become an appendage of the Democrats. During the period of upsurge ill the 30's and 40's, the demand for the political role of the unions by the membership had to be acknowledged. All unions formed Political Action Committees or Educational Associations. Objectively these committees of the unions, by playing the pressure role of a minor party, helped to prevent the formation of a party of labor. This in turn prevented the independence of the unions.
The slogan of reward one's friends has meant accepting the bribe from the imperialists and supporting them in their attack against the colonial toilers.
Broader and broader sections of especially the lower level union officials are being jarred alert to the meaning of their political impotence. The continuing move of industry out of the established areas of the Midwest and East, the inability of the unions to organize the North, let alone the South, are placing all the unions in jeopardy. They very well understand that the fight has to be made in the legislative arena. This must be accomplished through mobilizing and activating, the membership of the unions to apply pressure not only to their union leadership but also on their elected officials. Carter's phony populism is again showing them the impossibility of relying on the good graces of Wall Street. A difficult life situation is forcing them to look to themselves for politically reliable people to guide them in the legislative fight to repeal the anti-labor laws that are preventing them from expanding the union organization.
We have never doubted the inevitability of the formation of a real third party in the US. It is also clear that the time is approaching. However, it will not come of itself. It must be fought for. Communists and Progressives must begin now to expose each and every maneuver by the representatives of the capitalist class that spells further political disenfranchisement and economic impoverishment for the workers. They must be taught that the only reliable force is the workers themselves. They must be taught that just as they had to unite in order to take care of their economic needs, so they have to unite to care for their political needs.
Originally appeared in the July 15, and Aug. 1, 1977 issues of the People's Tribune, published aat the time by the Communist Labor Party.
Fraternally Mark Scott
