"The following note, too, is basically written for those who are interested either in the Nader campaign or the Green Party or third-party organizing in general or opposition to the ideology of Anybody But Republicans, so you can ignore it if you like."
I know of three major resistance responses available to the future left: (1) mass street action, boycotts, and allied (2) connecting unions and community groups in radical, independent electoral politics (3) a mix of 1 and 2. Independent working class politics shouldn't be shouldered aside in this period when #1 above seems to dominate and be the focus of analysis, so I appreciate Yoshie's attention to aspects of #2.
Though it's been pretty well written off, I'm still partial to the Labor Party concept, and now directing some attention to why it declined and what its future might look like. Let's remember that the LP and the Green Party both emerged in the early 90s when much was looking gruesome (still is, of course, and probably getting worse). With the unwitting help of the Sweeney 'revolution' in the AFL-CIO, and a growing ecology movement in the Anglo middle class, two independent 'third' parties were formed that rejected in principle any collaboration with the Democrats and Republicans. Coming from two relatively distinct classes, there was little 'natural' social overlap. While the LP program and membership was class conscious from the git-go, it wasn't until Nader entered the scene that the GP's class consciousness took an upswing. Nader became pied piper for many LP activists who in 2000 jumped the floundering labor ship to enter blue-green waters. But that's history, and now both baby parties are in dirty water.
Could it be that Eric Thomas Chester's True Mission, Verso, 2004 (subtitle: Socialists and the Labor Party Question in the U.S.), that rejects on the basis of historical experience any 'third party' except the Socialist Party, be generally correct? I seriously doubt it. All we really know is that independent parties in the 20th Century have been relative failures, including the SP. Some of them, most notably the LP, incorporated the rudiments of socialism, but failed to get past first base.
Since we may have to rethink some things, fortunately the future of class resistance still remains, and there is a straightforward logic that won't release me. Number 1 above (street heat, etc) is a necessary but not sufficient tool to bring about fundamental change. Should that tool be organized and controlled by batteries of well meaning 'at-large' revolutionaries and intellectuals (current models: ANSWER, United for Peace & Justice) that basically are not part of extant local social organization or not actual long-term rank 'n file? Or should that tool be in the 'democratic' control of fundamental 'peoples' institutions', such as organizations of workers (in or outside the NLRB fold) plus those who are part of - like it or not - the neighborhood common life of workers (churches, block clubs, self-help groups, identity collectives)?
Two institutions - work and neighborhood - are everlastingly intertwined. Makes sense to me that radical electoral politics must be so organized. Black Workers for Justice, Jobs with Justice, and ACORN seem to understand this. The Labor Party and Green Party, bless their hearts, began to appreciate the relationship just as things were going into a kind of tail spin. But we live and learn.
Bob Mast -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20040618/1bb644b9/attachment.htm>