💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › sam-weiner-the-labor-party-illusion.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 14:11:52. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: The Labor Party Illusion Author: Sam Weiner Language: en Topics: party, United States Source: Retrieved on 1999-05-01 from https://web.archive.org/web/19990501195343/http://www.tigerden.com:80/~berios/labor-illusion.html Notes: Originally written in the United States some 25 years ago, this essay was as relevent then as it is today. At the time, Sam Dolgoff went by the pseudonym “Sam Weiner” in his writings.
The cry for a Labor Party in the United States is again being heard from
various sides. Some of the Socialist Party people are agitating for it.
The Trotskyists are currently in favor of it, and Meany, President of
the AFL-CIO, climbs on and off of the bandwagon as the spirit moves him
or as policy considerations of the moment appear to dictate.
Agitation for a Labor Party is almost as old as the labor movement
itself. Numerous beginnings in this direction have at times been made.
In 1829, the “Workingmens Party” in New York received 6,000 out of
21,000 votes, a higher proportion than any other independent movement
has since achieved.
At times the sentiment for a Labor Party has been confined to small
radical and liberal groups on the fringes of the broader labor movement.
At other times powerful coalitions with a mass following, including
unions and farmers’ organizations, have organized large mass movements
such as the Populists of the last century and the two “Progressive
Parties” of Robert La Follette and Henry Wallace.
At the 1936 Convention of the AFL, 104 delegates, representing a
powerful bloc of unions large and small, came close to committing the
Federation to working for the establishment of a Labor Party. Such a
policy would have been a reversal of the traditional position that
called for “rewarding our friends and punishing our enemies” among the
capitalist politicians of the Republican and Democratic Parties. Other
examples of Labor Party attempts have been the American Labor Party in
New York State and the Farmer Labor Party in Minnesota and adjoining
states. In addition to those who have wanted a distinct political party
of Labor, based on the unions, independent of and in opposition to the
old-line parties, there have been organizations such as the Socialist
Party, that oscillated between running their own candidates and
supporting capitalist “friends of labor.” Despite their differences, all
of the radical tendencies supporting parliamentary action by the workers
base their attitudes on the belief that such action can in some way
alleviate or cure social evils.
Those who favor independent electoral action by Labor reason that-. “The
United States is a democracy where the majority rules. We, the workers,
farmers and small businessmen, are the majority of the people. We have
voted for the Republicans and the Democrats and they have betrayed us.
We must establish a political party controlled by ourselves and run our
own candidates. They will surely be elected since we are a majority.
Then the government controlled by us will legislate in our favor.”
At first sight this appears reasonable. What could be simpler? However,
a closer examination reveals that this argument is based on fundamental
political and economic misconceptions. The idea of a Labor Party is
based on the widespread myth that in a democracy the majority rules.
This is a myth that must be exposed.
Leon Blum, the eminent French politician, whose vast and unsavory
experience qualifies him as an expert on the subject, remarked that,
”The parliamentary regime is a regime of parties.” Jean Jacques
Rousseau, the philosopher of democratic government, would not endorse
“representative government” as it is practiced today. He wrote: “The
deputies of the people should not and cannot be the people’s
representatives, they can only be its servants.... The moment that
people give power to their representatives, they abdicate their
liberty.” (The Social Contract)
The fundamental principle of every political party, regardless of the
form of government, is the same. V.0. Key, professor of government at
Yale University, in his penetrating and scholarly book, Politics,
Parties and Pressure Groups has this to say:
“It is sometimes said that the method by which a party seeks to gain
control (of the government) is the unique characteristic of the party as
a group. The American party uses the peaceful method of campaigning and
appeal for popular support to gain power, which is said to differentiate
it from the factions ... which struggle for power by the use of military
force. The theory ... is advanced that the modern party and the
democratic electoral process are but a sublimation, perhaps temporary,
of the tendency to resort to force to gain control of the government....
This theory gives a clue to the nature of the party struggle .... The
term Party is applied equally to the peaceful parties of America and to
the Communist Party of Russia, the Nazi Party of Germany, and the
Fascist Party of Italy. The methodology of these parties varies, but
their fundamental objective-to place and keep their leaders in control
of the government—is the same.”
A capitalist democracy is a competitive society where predatory pressure
groups struggle for wealth and prestige and jockey for power. Because
such a society lacks inner cohesion, it cannot discipline itself. It
needs an organism which will appease the pressure groups by satisfying
some of their demands and prevent the conflicts among them from
upsetting the stability of the system. The Government plays this role
and in the process enacts more and more laws. The bureaucratic governing
group thus becomes a class in itself with interests of its own, and
becomes more firmly entrenched as it extends its influence.
The end result of this process will be reached when the State assumes
ownership and/or control over the whole of society, establishing State
Capitalism-or, if you prefer, State “Socialism.” The United States is
fast evolving in this direction.
At this stage in its drift towards totalitarianism, the governing group
cannot rule alone. It needs the financial and moral support, at any
given time, of most of the influential power groups: the financiers, the
labor movement, the farmers, the press, the churches, as well as the
military and civilian bureaucracies. Despite their differences, all
these institutions and groups are inter-dependent and no one of them can
stand without leaning on the others. Parliamentary democracy is, at this
stage, the political system which safeguards the unjust economic and
social order.
The actual rulers in a parliamentary democracy are the class of
professional politicians. In theory, they are supposed to represent the
people, but in fact they rule over them. They do not represent. They
decide. This is why Pierre Joseph Proudhon, the anarchist thinker, said,
“Parliament is a King with 600 heads.” The political parties, or more
accurately, the inner clique that controls them, select the candidates
for whom the people vote. The candidates express the will of the party
and not that of the people. The platforms of the contending parties are
adjusted to trick the voters into balloting for their candidates. Then
the immense machinery of mass hypnotism goes into high gear. The press,
the radio, television and the pulpit brainwash the public. The stupefied
voter casts his ballot for candidates that he never nominated and never
knew, whose names he forgets, and whose platforms he has perhaps never
read. The electoral swindle is over. The voters go back to work (or to
look for work) and the politicians are free to decide the destiny of the
millions as they see fit.
Political machines seek to perpetuate themselves by all sorts of tricks.
They sidetrack, channelize and emasculate the popular will. New
politicians try to displace old ones by changing the electoral laws,
while entrenched politicians defend outworn electoral systems when they
feel that the new laws might weaken their positions and perhaps even
abolish their sinecures.
For example, the politicians in the big cities are incensed at the
politicians from the rural areas who control many state governments,
because the state legislature dictates to the cities and deprives them
of revenue. Representation in many state legislatures is not relative to
actual population but according to districts and counties. These
arrangements were made when America’s population was predominantly
rural. Since then the growing population has concentrated in the cities,
yet the system of representation remains the same.
The Painter and Decorator of June, 1960, in an article entitled “All
Votes Aren’t Equal,” gives many examples, such as:
“...fewer than 300 inhabitants of Union, Connecticut, have the same
number of representatives in the states lower house as the city of
Hartford, with a population of over 177,000-giving each Union voter the
strength of 685 Hartford voters. Business groups generally defend
unequal representation. They have learned that the conservative
philosophy of small town lawyers and business men is often closely in
line with their own views. Also, rural legislators may almost always be
counted upon to oppose the objectives of organized labor.... Such
inequities are a major factor in American politics. In the South,
political machines have used the county unit system to become
self-perpetuating. In many northern states, huge city populations have
been denied their proportional voice and vote in enacting legislation
essential to their survival.”
Labor Parties are no more immune to the diseases inherent in the
parliamentary system than are other political parties. If new Labor
Party legislators are elected they will have to “play the game”
according to the established rules and customs. If they are honest, they
will soon become cynical and corrupted and will be swallowed up by the
machine. Most of them will find the new environment to their taste
because they have already learned how to connive and bamboozle the
public when they were operating as big wheels in their own union
organizations. The administrations of most labor unions are patterned
after the governmental forms of political parliamentary democracy. A
course in the school of labor fakery prepares the graduates for
participation in municipal, state and national government. When they
take political office, they will not represent the members of the
unions, but rather the political machine that controls the labor
movement.
For the sake of illustration, let us assume that a strong Labor Party in
the United States has succeeded in electing thousands of local, state
and national officeholders as has happened in England, France, Germany
and many other countries. The history of the parliamentary labor and
socialist party movements in Europe gives us a good idea of what would
happen to a similar movement in the U.S.
The record of the Labour Government which ruled Britain from 1945 to
1951 proves that it betrayed every socialist principle and violated
nearly all its pre-election pledges. These betrayals were reflected in
its domestic, foreign and colonial policies.
The direction of Labour Government policy was clearly formulated by a
high party official, Sir Hartley Shawcross, in February, 1946: “I take
the opportunity of making it quite clear that this Government like any
Government as an employer, would feel itself perfectly free to take
disciplinary action that any strike situation might develop demanded.”
The Labour Party had pledged itself not to use troops as
strike-breakers. Only six days after coming into power the Labour
Government ordered troops to break a strike of London dock-workers. This
was repeated three months later. The Government decreed wage freezes and
compulsory arbitration.
Pre-election pledges to the effect that the unions would have direct
representation in the management of state owned industries were
forgotten. The Party, once in power, reversed its traditional opposition
to military conscription in favor of permanent peacetime conscription.
In nationalizing the Bank of England, the coal mines, railways, canals
and other utilities, the Labour Government guaranteed the stockholders
the same income as before.
The principle behind these domestic policies guided Labour Party action
in foreign and colonial affairs as well. Before the dropping of the atom
bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August, 1945, President Truman had
obtained the agreement of the British Labour Government. The military
adventures in Greece, Egypt, Iran, Indonesia, Korea and elsewhere caused
an increase in the “defense” budget from 692 million pounds in 1948 to
1032 million pounds in 1951. One hundred and thirty six Spanish
anti-fascists were deported into the arms of Franco to certain
imprisonment, torture or death.
The Labour Party’s defeat in the last General Election was due primarily
to the justified disappointment of the workers with its actions when in
power. In 1945, Arthur Greenwood (Labour Government Privy Seal) said: “I
look around my colleagues and I see landlords, capitalists and lawyers.
We are a cross-section of the national life and this is something that
has never happened before.”
it is impossible for any political party of “Labor” to reach power
without concessions to the Right—to the middle class—at the expense of
basic principles. “Labor” (or “Socialist”) parties lose their identity
and eventually are found to differ only on minor points from the
“conservative” contenders for power. Labor Partyism is
class-collaboration in the political field and it is just as disastrous
for the workers as class-collaboration has been in the economic field.
There is every reason to believe that the same fate would befall an
American labor party if one were established. Advocates of a labor party
in the U.S. could profit by the lessons of the British Labour Party.
In the competition for votes, the original ideals and principles would
be forgotten. The thousands of new officeholders would become a
conservative force deeply rooted in the established order, and married
to their jobs. They would establish rapport with the business community,
with the large agricultural interests, with the clergy. They would
cultivate the support of the press and other mass-media interests upon
whose support they will come to depend. The Labor Party would then be
swamped by hordes of lawyers, bourgeois intellectuals, liberal
churchmen, ambitious office-seekers and other careerists, who would
infiltrate the organization. The honest workers and the radical elements
would be forced into the background. Of “labor,” only the name would
remain. The once proud Labor Party would become just another party in
the machinery of the State.
Matthew Wohl, deceased Vice-President of the AFL (himself a first-rate
conniver), in the debate with the labor party bloc at the 1936
Convention, let the cat out of the bag in an unguarded moment:
“I have watched these politicians in our movement. I followed their
methods and regardless of how they talk of their trade union loyalty, my
experience has been that when they enter the political arena they begin
by talking as politicians, and very soon thinking like politicians, to
the desertion of every trade union activity they pledged themselves to
become part of.”
The various factions inside the American labor movement were always
sharply divided on the question of parliamentary action in general and
the labor party issue in particular. There are factions that believe in
the class struggle and also in parliamentary action.
In our opinion, tactics must flow from principles. The tactic of
parliamentary action is not compatible with the principle of class
struggle. Class struggle on the economic field is not compatible with
class collaboration on the political field. This has been demonstrated
throughout the whole history of the labor movement in every land.
Parliamentary action serves only to reinforce the institutions that are
responsible for social injustice — the exploitative economic system and
the State.
The strength of the labor movement lies in its economic power. Labor
produces all the wealth and — provides all the services. Only the
workers can fundamentally change the social system. To do this, they do
not need a labor party, since by their economic power they are in a
position to achieve the social revolution that is indispensable-for
human progress. As long as the means of production are in the hands of
the few and the many are robbed of the fruits of their labor, any
participation in the political skullduggery which has as it sole purpose
the maintenance of this system, amounts to tacit and direct support of
the system itself. By electoral participation in any form, radicals
become accomplices in the fraud.
The North American labor movement today is reactionary. Almost all of
the unions are tyrannically controlled by unprincipled bureaucrats and
not a few by racketeers, whose ethics are those of the predatory social
system in which they operate. They practice class collaboration, and
uphold the doctrine that the interests of the employer and his victim,
are identical. This is a secret from no one. In the August, 1958 issue
of Harpers Magazine, Dick Bruner, expolitical staff executive of the
CIO, wrote:
It (the labor movement) lacks its own ideas. On many of the most
fundamental political and social issues, it is hard to distinguish
Labor’s position from that of the National Association of Manufacturers.
It has adopted the ‘mass market’ concept of the big corporations and its
leaders treat the rank and file with contempt!”
Any serious Labor Party that is formed will be under the domination of
this corrupt, collaborationist union bureaucracy. The same leaders who
have repeatedly sold out the workers at the bargaining table will repeat
their betrayals in the legislative bodies. Labor Partyism means class
collaboration on the political field. The same disastrous results are
inevitable since It involves making concessions to classes whose
interests are diametrically opposed to the basic interests of the
working class.
Selig Perlmann, the well-known labor historian, in A Theory of the Labor
Movement, says:
“Under no circumstances can labor here afford to arouse the fears of the
great middle class for the safety of private property as a basic
institution. Labor needs the support of public opinion, meaning the
middle class, both rural and urban......
The middle class, as the name implies, allies itself not only with the
labor legislators, but also with the military faction, the financial
interests and other anti-labor pressure groups, when it feels that it
has something to gain thereby. The Labor Party will then be forced to
support their middle class allies for fear of retaliation when they need
its support for some of their own measures. This being the case, it is
bound to lose whatever identity it did have, and become as corrupt as
any of the old parties.
Those who are today beating the drum loudest for the ‘Labor Party are
radicals of various Marxist or pseudo-Marxist groups. These same people
will tell you that they believe in the class struggle and economic
action by the workers. Some will explain that parliamentary action is
only a gimmick to gain a public forum, or free time on television every
four years. Others claim that parliamentary action is necessary to
supplement and make economic action more effective.
Nothing could be more dangerous to the workers’ cause. Electioneering
diverts the attention of the working class from militant struggles into
essentially counter-revolutionary channels. It vitiates their confidence
in the class struggle and in their own independent economic power.
In the supplement to Elzbacher’s Anarchism, Rudolf Rocker deals with
this problem in the following terms:
“All the political rights and liberties which people enjoy today, they
do not owe to the good will of their governments, but to their own
strength.... Great mass movements and whole revolutions have been
necessary to wrest them from the ruling classes, who would never have
consented to them voluntarily. What is important is not that the
governments have decided to concede certain rights to the people,but why
they had to do this.
“If Anarcho-Syndicalism nevertheless rejects the participation in
national parliaments, it is not because they have no sympathy with the
political struggles in general, but because its adherents are of the
opinion that this form of activity is the very weakest and most helpless
form of the political struggle for the workers....
“It is a fact that when socialist labor parties have wanted to achieve
some decisive political reforms they could not do it by parliamentary
action, but were obliged to rely wholly on the economic fighting power
of the workers. The political general strikes in Belgium and Sweden for
the attainment of universal suffrage are proof of this. And in Russia,
it was the general strike in 1905 that forced the Tsar to sign the new
constitution. It was the recognition of this which impelled the
Anarcho-Syndicalists to center their activity on the socialist education
of the masses and the utilization of their economic and social power.
Their method is that of direct action in both the economic and political
struggle of the time. By direct action they mean every method of the
immediate struggle by the workers against economic and political
oppression. Among these the outstanding are the strike in all its
gradations, from the simple wage struggle to the general strike,
organized boycott and all the other countless means which workers as
producers have in their hands.” (Pages 257–259)
In this connection, the reader has but to recall the direct action
movements of workers and students in our own Southern states, as well as
in South Africa, Korea, Turkey, Japan, Venezuela, Hungary, Poland and
East Germany. The American labor movement turned to parliamentary action
not because economic action is ineffective but because it surrendered
its greatest weapon—the right to strike—to the employing class, the
State and the union dictators. The labor movement is in deep crisis
because the membership has been infected by the counter-revolutionary
virus of class collaboration of which parliamentarism is but one form.
Instead of chasing the Labor Party illusion, all who seek a progressive
revolutionary transformation of society should work to re-educate and
inspire the labor movement with revolutionary principles, from which
revolutionary strategy and tactics will logically flow.
Sam Weiner