[lbo-talk] Labor Party (USA)

Wojtek Sokolowski sokol at jhu.edu
Wed Mar 3 09:21:06 PST 2004


Doug:
> I was involved with the LP in New York City for a few years. The NYC
> chapter was destroyed by our old friend, sectarianism, as competing
> bands of Trots tried to take over the party. The chapter was
> eventually trusteed by the national party and now barely exists, if
> at all.

I had a very similar experience in Baltimore.


> to destroy it), the non-electoral strategy (I think Mazzocchi was
> right to emphasize organizing first before running candidates, but
> it's hard to persuade some people to sign up to such a program), and
> the generally alienated and depoliticized state of the U.S. working
> class.

I think that this plan was quite smart, given the winner-takes-all nature of the US system. Under the parliamentary (PR) system, a minority party can nonetheless secure some parliamentary seats and exert its power by forming coalitions with like-minded larger parties. Under the winter-takes-all system, however, a minority party faces zero chance of gaining any representation. What is more, if it actually runs this amount to ant-coalition, that is it hurts, not helps the larger party which would be its likely coalition partner under the PR system.

For that reason, any "third party" effort to run candidates in elections is either (i) a "Trojan horse" -a disguised act of sabotage that on the surface looks like principled concern, or (ii) complete cluelessness about the nature of the game. That creates a dilemma for minority opinions: either shut up and go with the program or shoot themselves in the foot by abetting their arch-enemies.

In that situation, the LP strategy of not running political candidates was a clever way out of this dilemma. By refusing to run candidates of their own and promising to support ANY candidate (Democrat or Republican) with labor-friendly agenda - the LP did essentially what minorities parties do under the PR system - it offered a coalition forming. But that coalition forming was at the time when it actually could have a desired rather than antithetical effect - before the election, by increasing their coalition partner's chance to pass the post.

I think that the reason why the LP got nowhere was that it actually could give more political power to labor and the powers that be did not like that at all, and backstabbed the initiative. After all, a bunch of goofy yahoos who pop out of nowhere five minutes before the high noon to "challenge the duopoly" and "represent the common man" are completely harmless to the status quo, but help maintaining the Potemkin village illusions about US politics.

Wojtek



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list