>This is the point that has bothered me most since I first heard the
>proposal for a Labor Party about 10+/- years or so ago in an address
>Tony Mazzocchi gave at a plenary of an early Radical Scholars and
>Activists conference in Chicago. There is simply too sharp a split -- a
>split that tends to be antagonistic even -- between "organized labor"
>and the vast majority of the u.s. working class.
We have several Labor Party members locally who would like to be in unions but can't (most notably, a guy who's tried to organize his workplace, a chemical plant, 3 times). They view the Labor Party chapter here as their way of participating in the fight for labor rights. Advocating universal programs actually does, on the ground, bridge that gap a bit, and reminds everyone that the labor movement isn't just about protecting that dwindling group in unions.
Organized labor, whatever else you can say about it, is, well, organized (I'm thinking specifically of organizing skills, resources, and a certain understanding based in experience). It's easy to complain about union bureaucrats and sell-out misleaders but in my experience, that's only half the movement leadership. The other half is struggling against impossible legal odds and high-paid propaganda offensives to serve the members and even, if they get a free breath, to promote the idea of class solidarity as a general community value.
Organizing the unorganized is a noble idea, and certainly a goal, but it's resource-intensive to start there. I just think a Labor Party has to come out of the existing labor movement. Crazy, I know.
Jenny Brown