<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1400" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Doug:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>I was involved
with the LP in New York City for a few years. The NYC <BR>chapter was destroyed
by our old friend, sectarianism, as competing <BR>bands of Trots tried to take
over the party. The chapter was <BR>eventually trusteed by the national party
and now barely exists, if <BR>at all.</FONT><BR><BR></FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Doug:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>But I'm sure
you know the other reasons for the LP's problems - <BR>hostility from the main
unions (the LP couldn't get beyond a core of <BR>small unions who endorsed it,
though thankfully Big Labor never tried <BR>to destroy it), the non-electoral
strategy (I think Mazzocchi was <BR>right to emphasize organizing first before
running candidates, but <BR>it's hard to persuade some people to sign up to such
a program), and <BR>the generally alienated and depoliticized state of the U.S.
working <BR>class.</FONT><BR><BR>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.</DIV></FONT>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>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. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>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. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>