John Lacny wrote:
> Vito Marcantonio was elected as a Republican. Only later did he
> occasionally
> get the Democratic nomination as well, until the red-baiters drove him out
> of the nomination process in both major "parties" and he had only the
> American Labor Party ballot line to fall back on. As for this stuff about
> him "failing to act independently of the Democrats," the only response of a
> rational person has to be, "um, whatever dude," since Marcantonio strongly
> opposed the Cold War when that was decidedly the Not Cool thing to do. And
> he paid for it dearly. And yes, the Communist Party was the base of his
> electoral coalition, but there is no evidence that I've seen that he was
> ever a Party member.
>
> All of which is proof of my point that neither the Democrats nor the
> Republicans are "parties" in any real sense. They are electoral coalitions
> that are made up of interest groups that are effectively "parties" in all
> but name. The Non-Partisan Leagues of the Popular Front era recognized this,
> and our goal in the electoral arena should be to do something like that
> (while the "party" proper is primarily concerned with base-building in the
> extra-electoral field -- no one disputes this, only dichotomy-addled trots
> and anarchists who cannot chew gum and walk at the same time), although I
> think the opportunities for running on the Republican line in many places
> these days are virtually nil. When all is said and done, we need maximum
> tactical flexibility, and for that we need people to stop conflating princip
> les and fetishes. Principle means not renouncing our independent positions
> and agitation on critical issues (the war, gay rights, whatever) even as we
> work in coalition with people who are not fully-developed revolutionaries --
>
> but this goes both for "movement-building" AND electoral politics, since it
> is fetishistic to think that electoral politics has some especially
> corrosive effect on principle that the necessary coalition work we pursue on
> other fronts somehow does not. Further, talking about "the" Democratic Party
> (or "the" AFL-CIO "bureaucracy" in the context of other discussions),
> without more than a superficial understanding of how these instututions work
> in the real world, or a plan to break out of our conundrum that can be
> articulated and explained in terms of real-world strategy -- all of these
> are fetishes, too, and should be dispensed with. People who stick to them
> have no claim to be taken seriously.
>
>
> - - - - - - - - - -
> John Lacny
> http://www.johnlacny.com
>
>
Marcantonio ran as a Republican due to the anomalies of NYC politics at the time. Because the Democrats were controlled by the anti-Roosevelt Tammany Hall machine, LaGaurdia's Republicans, together with the American Labor Party, became the main vehicle of the New Deal coalition, in which the CP was deeply immersed. LaGuardia's press secretary was a Party member. Whether or not Marcantonio was also a member, he remained faithful to the party line during most of his Congressional tenure. He split with the Dems over the Cold War, at roughly the same time the rest of the Party did. My point, however, was that Marcantonio had for many years a base that was loyal enough to elect him seven times, despite red baiting, and despite the limitations of the constitutional/federal system. He could have used his great prestige to influence his base in a number of directions.
The differences between Lacny and myself boil down to this: he argues that the Democratic Party is a loose coalition with no defined political or social role, and that it is dogmatic, fetishistic and stupid to speak of the American labor bureaucracy as a distinct group with a definite MO. I, on the other hand, claim that one major function of the DP, as well as of the labor officialdom that serves it, is to control labor, minorities and other potentially rebellious groups on behalf of the capitalist system. There are many means by which this control is exerted, most of which involve money in one way or another. But the end is always the same: to channel all movements, organizations and individuals who may pose a threat to the existing order into the innocuous channels of two-party electoral politics. Organizations that perform this function are not only desirable from the standpoint of the ruling class, they are indispensable under an electoral democracy, not only at times when capitlism is under threat from below, but also when its grip is firm. This was true during the New Deal, and it is true today.
Take only a few recent examples: 1) the hysterical baiting of the Naderites in 2000, 2) pressure exerted upon the Greens in 2004 not to endorse Nader, 3) pressure from Sweeny on member unions not to endorse the Million Worker March because it might reflect badly upon Kerry. (One can argue about the tactical wisdom of calling the march when the organizers did, or giving it the name they gave it, or how they went about building for it, but does anyone deny that it would have been considerably larger if not for the Federation's opposition?)
Against the above generalization concerning the role of Democrats and bureaucrats, Lacny takes refuge in details: There are sincere grassroots activists in the DP, even among its elected officials; various interest groups vie with e ach other in the party; labor officialdom is not monolithic. This is all true. It's also true that many "Trots" are inclined to repeat the abstract generalization without paying a lot of attention to the particulars from which it is made. None of this, however, invalidates the generalization, or the fact that anyone acting from decent motives within the DP or union hierarchy is sooner or later confronted with a choice: accommodate or leave. One hopes that Lacny hasn't already made his choice. His attempt to paint the DP as some kind of shifting pluralistic coalition with no definite class allegiance is one indication that he has. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20041111/626111c5/attachment.htm>