Wojtek said he had a similar experience in Baltimore. Thanks to you both. I had direct experiences in Pittsburgh, Albuquerque, and Detroit, and was somewhat privy to stuff in other cities, that surely could be called sectarian as I understand that word. I knew the N. Y. City case because I was contacted in Albuquerque to get support by the factions involved. The N. Y. chapter demise was a sad thing because it claimed to have 1000 members, and we expected so much from the talent there. But what is sectarianism? The LP idea attracted all manner of left to its union and community bodies, and some cadre types from left groups seemed to give their group priority over the LP while others brought in their sectarian fights from the past.. I really got pissed at the tension and confusion this caused. Doug says "competing bands of Trots" in N.Y. What's a Trot? (that's a serious question). The term Trot is sometimes used inadvisably as a euphemism for agent. The LP had lots of ex-SWPrs and ex-CPrs (just like the case in labor, peace, or survival groups), but most of them generally put LP development first. Then there were Solidarity & ISOrs ( and even Greens) who might want to raid LP members. I don't know. Most kept their left ideology to themselves. Most united around LP goals. Seemed to me, the more to the left, the more the hard work given to the LP. Also, another hypothesis: the more the solid union presence (whether hard left or not), the better the LP units functioned. New York must have been a specially hard case, but sectarianism was a problem in chapters around the country.
Doug: But I'm sure you know the other reasons for the LP's problems - hostility from the main unions (the LP couldn't get beyond a core of small unions who endorsed it, though thankfully Big Labor never tried 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.
Hostility from the officers of the main unions was certainly true, but their organizing staffs were more friendly to the LP. Why? Because LP activists supported labor struggles. Most chapters' memberships were 70-80 percent union rank 'n file (very telling). Even where anti-LP diehard unions like the UAW predominated, a solid portion of LP chapters were UAW members. It's also telling that several hundred union bodies (locals, central labor councils, etc) officially endorsed or affiliated with the LP, theoretically encompassing two million unionists. The relationship was probably more apparent than real since I understand financial support was not readily forthcoming (Mazzocchi and comrades had a tough job). Bottom line: the LP idea and program appealed to the rank 'n file, as it should have and still does. I wonder how the union reshuffle that's currently unfolding will play in future working class politics.
On the electoral question, the LP's First Constitutional Convention in 1998 (Pittsburgh) decided to approve the running of candidates. Mazzocchi and comrades always were correctly cautious on this topic. They engineered through the Convention a tough set of criteria that had to be met before the Interim National Council would approve any electoral campaign, eg. a credible candidate and rational campaign plan, an LP chapter with substantial membership, strong union and community endorsement. Doug, you're right that this was a demand to organize first, and it was exactly what was needed. It also was a call to formulate local strategic organizing plans. Except as a mechanical exercise, this is one of the hardest things that I know of in any context. In this case, if your goal is to win an election, it only made sense to recruit many hundreds of new LP members, build a huge treasury, corral many supportive unions, possess much electoral savvy, build a heads-up campaign organization, etc.
The big thing: organize, organize, organize. I always saw even local LP elections being a long way off, maybe never, but in the meantime we'd build strong chapter structures that would support labor and progressive struggles, propagate the LP vision and practical program, and attempt to be liaison between unions and community groups. Maybe a couple dozen chapters sent in organizing plans that followed the Congressional district scheme that now was mandated by National and Masochist always wanted. And it made sense. If a working class-based organization calls itself a party, then eventually it must go electoral. Otherwise it's only agitational and educational. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20040304/83986a8f/attachment.htm>