You're misunderstanding me. I'm criticizing the double standard, not using 'democratic centralist' as an epithet. And, again, you're assuming that if I criticize someone on the left I'm therefore anti-left. Could be that I care MORE and therefore it pisses me off more.
Jane's editor of Labor Notes. Reality check, it's much more than Solidarity or DSA (tho I thought DSA still was sticking with the Dems--can't keep up). I just think that some of these people in these parties which are separate and apart from the LP, who participate in the LP, need to once in a while ask themselves not just 'what's good for the group I'm in?' but 'what's good for the movement?'
Plenty of people are in the LP and are in left parties or groups but they are somehow able to keep their sense of proportion. So it IS possible.
>In any case, if the LP has been mainly made up of members of either
>the endorsing unions or such leftist groups and individuals as I
>noted above, that's probably because most US residents outside of
>either circle have not heard of it.
Yeah, and when they do they join, which is why we think referenda are the way to get the word out.
>At 6:07 PM -0400 10/14/02, JBrown72073 at cs.com wrote:
>>And many who insist on
>>this at this stage seem to be asking the LP to pass some kind of
>>anti-imperialist litmus test in order to be worthy of their support.
>
>Opposing the war against Iraq isn't an "anti-imperialist" litmus
>test, though. Even some Republicans and a fair number of Democrats,
>who can't be remotely accused of "anti-imperialism," are against it.
>Why can't the LP oppose it? Where's the difficulty?
It can, probably will, but again, so what if it does? We still have to actually organize around the platform.
Also, I'm referring to almost 7 years of experience with this argument. I've told you I think W.'s Iraq plans are trying even conservative labor. However, for a more conservative union like the Paperworkers, whose leadership might be looking for an excuse to cut & run from the LP, an 'anti-war' resolution may be their opportunity. Then, less resources, less support, less connection with locals, is it a good thing in the long run? You tell me.
>What if the existing labor movement continues to decline in the rate
>of unionization toward a vanishing point, before the Labor Party gets
>going?
>Unions Hit Lowest Point in 6 Decades
>
>By STEVEN GREENHOUSE
>
>The percentage of American workers belonging to unions fell last year
>to 13.5 percent, its lowest point in six decades.
What?! The unionization rate in the US is declining? Someone tell Sweeney!
Seriously, when something's not working, you want to try something different.
Unionism which only focused on wages and the needs of the members hasn't worked so well. The left's little-parties-of-purity model hasn't done so hot over the last 30 years either. (I tend to think some of these folks wouldn't recognize a real movement if it bit them in the ass. They didn't recognize feminism, for example.)
Much of the Labor Party's program proposes relief from the risks US workers face when we stand up on the job: The shredded safety net, low wages (so how the hell can you save enough to survive if you stand up to the boss and get fired), very limited and low unemployment benefits, your own and your family's health care dependent on keeping your job, expensive and exclusive higher education, bankruptcy and eviction facing you if you lose your job. People fight anyway but it's tough. A little relief on any of these dimensions would help.
Jenny Brown