C'mon, if you don't support it, don't pretend the voting structure is what's stopping you from kicking in $20.
At-large members get a (comparatively small) vote at conventions, can submit resolutions, speak from the floor, make motions, etc. etc. Unions and chapters get votes based on their membership, so if you join a chapter you have a vote that way. And on the chapter and union level, of course, you have plenty of voice and vote, Ohio has a state Labor Party and at least three local organizing committees, as well as several endorsing locals, I'm sure.
>What's the benchmark is the LP aiming for --
>the size of the party, the funds, etc. -- in order to run a credible
>campaign, and when does it foresee it will reach it?
You can check out that on the website if you care to, where there are clearly listed criteria for a local campaign to meet, including that the candidate is clearly seen as THE labor candidate in the race.
>>However, the referendum campaigns--about 12 or so--have been pretty
>>successful in that they've (a) won without exception and (b) built the
>>group, at least in our case.
>
>I read about some of them at
><http://lpa.igc.org/lppress/lpp61_elections.html>; is this the
>strategy, winning nonbinding referenda?
Organizing around issues rather than simply candidates, yes. We're working on a binding universal health care one in Florida.
>> >As for the LP and the empire, here's a short list of problems: ...
>> >(2) After the end of the Cold War, capital has no reason to make the
>>>sort of compromise that it once made with unions (in exchange for
>>>support of anticommunist US foreign policy);
>>
>>But the pressure in these cases is not simply external, without the CIO,
>>for example, why would they need to have bought us off? Or without those
>>lil' ol' U.S. union struggles from, say, 1886 to 1946.
>
>Sure, and in 1947 (the year that marked the rise of the Red Purge), a
>lot changed politically, including unions.
They wouldn't have had to purge and terrorize if there were not an effective labor movement, the effectiveness was not limited to overseas pressure.
We both know the history, the debate is about what one does as a result. I'm speaking for myself, but the general attitude of the Labor Party here, and in the other locals and chapters I know, is that we don't think we have all the answers, it's a process of trying things out, talking to people, developing our ideas based on what we learn, trying again. Everybody doesn't agree on everything (thank god) and so we work along. Not fast, not easy, not shrinkwrapped.
>> >(3) Contradictions of neoliberal capitalism are now coming to a head
>>>- -- US economy may be possibly in for a Japan or worse yet a hard
>>>landing, with unforeseeable effects on global economy as well.
>>>
>>>How will the LP confront (1), (2), and (3)?
>>
>>We'd be stupid to think the role of the LP is to 'confront' the empire
>>status of the U.S.
>
>Can't it confront _at least a small part_ of the empire's agenda,
>like the war on Iraq?
Sure, and then?
>No criticism of -- much less opposition to -- the war on Iraq (not
>even from the point of view of preventing potential harms to US
>service personnel that you mentioned earlier) here. Is this as far
>as the LP can go on international policy?
I know things are moving dizzyingly fast, but if you'll cast your mind back to July, when this resolution was passed, or May, when its precursors were submitted by locals, you'll recall that invading Iraq was not so much on the agenda, whereas Fast Track, for example, was being crammed down our throats as a national security issue. Your very own Ohio LP is submitting an anti Iraq war resolution to the next national council meeting. I admit I am sort of tired of people who say, the LP isn't real if it doesn't do X. (Where X = have a resolution against the war, run candidates immediately, endorse Nader, take a position on Mumia, etc. etc.) Please. We have the staff and budget of a medium-sized union local.
This war in Iraq has the feel of a watershed of sorts. I'm glad WDK said what he did about his co-workers in Tampa. My somewhat conservative union friends (not left, supported invasion of Afghanistan) are not really in support of the Iraq policy. I think it's partially an intense hatred for W himself as a rich fuck who represents everything they despise about the elite, not to mention his unionbusting. W's losing people on this one, I hope a lot of people.
>The thing is, we want neither a Japan nor a hard landing, but we may
>be in for either anyhow, in part because of our weakness at present
>and for the last several decades here. Surely such macroeconomic
>questions affect jobs, health insurance, childcare, wages, work
>hours, etc.
Yeah, and if we kick less we get less. Go figure.
>Dare I say it, I also think that a program that lacks opposition to
>the kind of war that Bush & Co. will be waging is neither coherent
>nor very pro-worker.
Riiiiiight. I guess I just don't see things in this harsh all-or-nothing light. I don't think it's a matter of demanding that the LP, or anyone else, take a Correct stand on the war, we're talking about some difficult terrain here--which I think is shifting--but it does no good to act like the splits don't exist. The worker-anti-war split on Vietnam is still there--deep and bitter. W. may yet bring us together but he can also rip us apart.
>>To me, the question is how to find the resources to build around the solid
>>working-class agenda we have, cause people fucking love it when they hear
>>about it. Abolish insurance companies? Abolish Mondays? Free college?
>>Where do I sign?
>
>A good number of Americans will want to sign it if they ever hear
>about it, but the LP being what it is, not too many Americans have heard
about it yet;
And taking a clearer stand against imperialism will, I'm sure, help spread our fame far and wide.
>other Americans will want to know how we gonna
>pay for all that while paying for war and maintaining profits.
Well, to start with, healthcare is cheaper when it's provided publicly. The LP program calls confiscatory taxes of CEO earnings over 20 times the average wage in a company, as well as other tax changes, so maintaining profits is not really on the agenda. But hey, we're patsies for imperialism, so whaddya expect?
Jenny Brown co-chair, Alachua County Labor Party www.thelaborparty.org