[PEN-L:3819] Re: New Party piece
I would happily plead guilty to Stalinism if I weren't sure that Stalin was more of a Trotskyist than and Leninist...but Elaine is right that the debate in THESE terms is moot until the next revolutionary upheaval. In fact it obscures the truth which my story of the strike was meant to tell --the working class, upon which constituency I believe any genuine political indepenendent movement must arise, will in th main reject left sectarianism whatever its name. Its one of the interesting points of unity between skilled, unskilled, African-American, Mexican - American, Asian - American, women and men workers. Sectarianism is not radicalism. I have seen many shops adopt radical tactics, measures and positions, when convincing arguments are presented tht they promise a better result for the sacrifice of struggle. I cannot agree with Elaine, however, that a "culture of debate" is precisely what the labor movement needs to advance political independence. I think there has been an abundance of debate but a shortage of programatic work, especially in the area of economics. Maybe Elaine views the purpose of the culture of debate as serving this end. If so, then, yes I too am for more of such "culture". But much of the debate I read and hearskirts the key challenges to organizing workers today, such as: **how to frame the economic demands of the unorganized workers in political terms--since under current labor law these workers have no right to organize into tradtional unions. **a new analysis and program of workers'control of workplace that confronts directly and CORRECTS the weaknesses of the Soviet workplace culture which in my view contributed greatly to eht collapse of socialism. The issues raised by the ongoing quality circle--team concept in the context of modern production are important, even though the bosses raise them mostly in an anti-union framework (how else would THEY ever raise them?). In my experience with the New Party its weaknesses stem from vagueness on program. Its clear in most campaigns what their against, but not what they're for. But the same can be said of most of us on the left. I was interested in the responses to my assertion that I knew of no party that did not arise out of (at least in large part) an internal struggle within an old party or parties. The Black Panther Party, to the extent it engaged in POLITICAL as opposed to strictly DEFENSE activety was INTIMATELY connected to the Democratic clubs and committees in the African American communities of Buffalo and Cleveland (the cities where I lived during the Panther's life). I have no knowledge of the Canadian formation mentioned (at least its origins), but will investigate. It occurredto me that the African National Congress was the most recent notable exception to my statement, which should at least be changed to state: "I know of now new political party that has arisen EXCEPT from a struggle within an older party--unless it arose upon a base previously wholly disenfranchised." In any event, no emergent party can ignore the divisions among Democratic voters or candidates if it seeeks to win any election. Any campaign run on ISSUES especially in local areas will find common cause with thousands of voters who will in other races vote Democratic (and should be able to do so). The TEST of independence will not be the presence or absence of opportunists somehwre in the ranks or leadership (this is inevitable in any mass movement) -- but in the credibility of the program to deal with the issues, and if elections are won, the abilty to mobilize the base to defend itself against the certain and ruthless counter-offensive of the corporations. Unfortunately thisis where liberalism falls apart. Only whether the working poepole are sufficiently organized and united to FORCE the issues can bring a positive conclusion. Whether or not the culture of debate is adequate to satisfy intellectuals will not affect the outcome at all once the battle is joined. Which brings up (for me) the next biggest question. It is undebatable to me that the actual battles for power require a high degree (ALMOST military degree) of discipline inorder for workers to effectively use the power that they have. Within workers organizations prior to a decision being taken, it has often (not always) beentrue in my experience that debate is fierce and plentiful. Were it not, then the decisions taken to engage in a difficult struggle would have little effect or meaning. If, during the struggle and before its successful conclusion, debate is opened up again, the effect, almost without exception, is to end the struggle. The boss wins. It doesn't make any difference what the merits of opposing sidesin the debate may be insofar as the instant strggle goes. This question is no new news to most local unions who have ever been involved in a strike. The PROBLEM is what happens AFTER the strike, struggle,
[PEN-L:3789] Re: New Party piece
There goes Doug again!
** In "truly independent" politics, Democrats are not "to be flirted
with."
** He "suspects" that the Nw Party is just a DP "subtendency".
Anything less than complete independence -- not even cross-endorsements
or split ticket voting -- will "bind" you to the Democrats.
** And last but not least, go forth and "build a truly independent party..."
I helped lead a strike once in which a su
short service worker who was a member of some Trotskyist splinter group ("truly
independent" he was!) gave advice
just like Doug's: when the local union demands were being drawn up, this guy
put out leaflets calling for "more militant" demands, and for an immediate
slow down. When the Union negotiations ground to a halt, the workers slowed
down, but out came another leaflet ragging the union for not going immediately
on strike. When the workers were locked oout and the strike began in earnest,
out came another leaflet criticising the local for being too timid to
battle the cops guarding the scabs. When the cops attacked the strikers, and
the workers were injured and jailed for refusing to disperse, out caome
another leaflet from this guy without a scraatch or a day in jail criticising
the union for not arming the workers!
And when the strike was over and the workers returned under an agreement
that brought back everyone but our leafleteer, OH you could hear the
cries to heaven how the workers' true leaders were sacrificed and betrayed!
No genuine political party that I have EVER heard of arose EXCEPT
out of an internal struggle of existing political parties, obviously drawing
in politically active elements from the outside. The emergence of the
Republican party from the Whigs, and the role of abolishonists is a good
example. Lincoln was not "bullshit". This is certainly true of the
the workers political movements in particular.
The New Party's efforts have been creative, especially in the area of
local and regional concentration, and in tactics. It MAY not become THE
trend that builds to the key independent break all on the Left would like
to take place. But it is an important effort, with SOME concrete POLLITICAL
results, notwithstanding the smug, carping, self-serving phrasemongering
of too many NATION gadflys.
J. Case
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:3766] Re: New Party piece
Dear Doug: Did I miss it since 1/5/95, or did your proof that claims of the New Party in Milwaukee were "bullshit"appear elsewhere? I would appreciate reading your remarks. How can I find them? While I find the articles of Nation writers generally interesting and certainly entertaining--including your own -- I think the tone of smug superiority that often infects the editorializing unhelpful toward the fostering of good works or the correction of errors. Perhaps your review of the "bullshit" claims of the NEw Party will be refreshing. J Case [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:3603] Re: Arguments: labor exploitation and boycotts
Yo Bill! I think ya really got something here. By the way, what toys do you play with? Regards J. Case PS How bout australian baseball bats? There could be a business opportunity here?!
[PEN-L:3543] Re: clinton
I am troubled by some points in Cantor/Schor's article. 1) If the inevitability of socialism stands on as shaky ground as the DLC's advise to Clinton, then there can be no possible way of "figuring out" how to "get government on our side and rein in a market system gone berserk." 2) I think actually the DLC's advise to Clinton is only "pragmatic" political course open to him, and he WILL take it. The dominant forces in the ruling class, judging by the financial backing of the Gingrich campaign, seem to have shifted toward dismantling the welfare state. There is clearly no consensus even among ruling circles about this judging by the covers of Time, Newsweek, and the editorial pages of the principle newspaper publishing empires. But the opposition to Gingrichism seems sputtering and uncertain, because the blatant failures of New Deal liberalism are evident everywhere. Years of declining real wages have caused big sections of the working class to abandon the democratic party, and in varying degreees support the reactionary anti-tax forces. The social decay spreading daily has undermined the legitimacy of many programs. Gingrichism seems to feel that monetary controls and anti-democratic initiatives, and the weakness of the labor movement, can permit a partial abandonment of keynesian economics. What is the failure of liberalism except the proof that capitalism cannot be fixed, or "reined in". A government bought and paid for by multinational corporations cannot be "gotten on our side." There can be no emancipation for the working class THAT IS NOT ITS OWN ACT. With trepidation, with no small degree of terror, with grief at the pain and suffering ahead, I nevertheless welcome a new political atmosphere where the window dressing on monopoly capital will be removed, the system of capitalism itself garbed in plainer dress. In such an environment the much needed renewal and revitalization of socialist theory and practice can be advanced. A NEW Bolshevism is what is needed. Build it and it will come! J. Case
Re: Middle class-shmiddle class
It seems unfair for Ellen to treat discussions of distinctions within oppressed classes QUITE so lightly. Unity and the lack of it is related to some of these distinctions and the ability of political strategy and tactics to find common ground can depend upon an accurate understanding of the poten- tial conflicts that may arise between allies. The problems of people making 50,000 a year and under 20,000 a year can be significantly different, even if their solution requires a common effort directed at a common cause. The same can be said, it seems to me, of many other potential divisions within the working class. The debate over whether non-industrial workers are proletarian, has relevance to questions of strategy and tactics in revolutionary theory, but mainly in the organization of revolutionary workers parties, and the base such parties seek to establish in the trade unions. The sphere of material production historically delivered the lion's share of extracted surplus value, and concentrated the workers in the kind of work environment that was conducive to advancing class consciousness. Of course an important aspect of proletarian was that he/she is "propertyless." Trade unionism and perhaps a conscious policy by bosses (a response to the early successes of indus- trial unionism) of corruption has changed this "propertyless" aspect of an important section of industrial workers. Many of these workers own property, have skills that have been parleyed into part-time businesses. The percentage of workers in basic industry (steel, auto, machine tools, etc., in this category, I donot know, exactly. But my experience in the New England machine tool industry was that the number in this category exceeded 30%. Very responsible trade unionists (meaning persons who honestly a and competently sought to repreesnt the workers' interests in the shop) often voted Republican. The reasons given for this were more often than not related to the fact that their political vote was a reflection of their "property" intrests: they owned a duplex, or a small apt bldg., and wanted lower taxes on it; racismoften fed these prejudices. Anyway, I find some sympathy with Ellen's dislike of nitpicking distinctions; but I feel that much of the lack of unity of left theory and politics stems from not understanding well enough the many components that go into building class consciousness. So I support the continued discussion even if it does often get petty. John CAse Philadelphia, PA [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Identity crisis
Around 1946, to mention a prominent example, the "fabrication of intellectual thought" shut down mining, and shortly thereafter Steel, Electrical and Automobile industries. Employers stunned by such a "thought" rushed to pass Taft-Hartley and launch McCarthyism--perhaps an alternative "fabrication." John Case
Re: the Democrats are dead?
I believe that the "political science framework" of the Democratic Party rests on the viability of the ddd"welfare state" much as the right wing has chjarged. The big business groupings that under Roosevelt were convinced to suppport the welfare state, and under the pressure of the multitudes of millions gave ground to progressive social legis- lation, have either been weakened or have changed their minds. The "wel- fare state" as such was neverr the demand of the powerful workers' movements of the thirties. And it is arguable, in hindsight, that the form of the concesdsions of unemployment insurance, welfare, legalization of unions, and social security in some cases permitted these concessions to be turned against the movements. In any event, there seems to be "bipartisan" support for abolishing much of the welfare system. I can't imagine the real consequences of this move. Clearly some who had no incentive to work for minimum wage jobs with no health insurance, will now be compelled to do so. But many will be turned even more desperately than now toward criminal activity. Prisons are state and federal budget busters, so I fear there must be plans afoot in the backrooms of the Heritage foundation to shoot a lot of people, or make them otherwise disappear. "Bipartisan" implies to me that there is big business, multi-national corporation consensus. The New York Times and the Washington Post, the LA Times and the Philadelphia Inquirer have mad harsh criticisms of Gingrich and Co on the "welfare state" question since the election. These media, for all of Rush Limbaugh's talk about them being nests of liberalism, have for a long time been mouthpieces for powerful sections of big business. These interests must be fearful of the social consequences of abandoning Keynes, or perhaps they have longer memories and recall the social cataclysms of the thirties that the New Deal was designed to forestall. But the public, including the working class, will not be won to support tax increases if they aren't getting wage increases, which they are not. To win the "traditional coalition" back means doing some things that big business liberalism is not inclined to do even under pressure and never initiate: liberalize worker self organization restraints. So I believe the Democrats will be forced to wait inthe wings for the Republican juggernaut to pass or become exposed again. If disaster looms, they will not be able to prevent it. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Election disaster
I am inclined to reject the argument that "clinton blew it" by abandoning the working class upon election. I think the left that is represented by the thinking of the Nation, and especially Alexander Cockburn do a disservice to the progressive movement by constantly hounding a liberal bourgeois candidate for being bourgeois. If Clinton took one morestep left than he already has, the powers that own both houses of Congress in the main, and the leadership of both major political parties would run him out the back door of the white house. (They may yet dump him if he puts up too much stink with the Republican route. All the machinery is in] place in the whitewater investigation, especially with Leach and D'Amato in control of the banking committees now.) A man not often quoted now once said the working class needs not "good representatives" but the organization to be their OWN EMANCIPATION. I think anyone familiar with the details of worker organization knows that wage cuts cannot form the basis of such organization. But social programs financed from taxes on workers wages are wage cuts when the workers arn't getting real wage increases. I think a demographic survey of the voting trends in 94 will show that low wage workers hardly vote at all (after all, NO ONE offers them a reason to vote); mid-range workers wages and higher wage workers were either picked up by the right wing anti-tax crowd, or , bitter over NAFTA, ETC., didn't turn out for the democrats. Black voters had much reason to oppose the Republicans, but hardly any positive reason to support Clinton. A sound economic program that includes expanded workers organizing rights, public investment without tax increases for workers, increased empowerment at the grass roots for working class political organizations, has yet to be convincingly dilineated, and tested. Bernie Sanders victory in Vermont shows that even the desire for such a program has staying power with working class voters. Clinton is not the problem. The problem is our -- the progressive movement's--inability to unite around a sound working classs democracy program.
Re: Decatur
I would be very interested in Staley lockout updates. J. CASE
