Which path: Building an independent workers movement or having illusions in the liberal Democrats
Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2005 7:17 pm
The following article was produced for the occasion of the MWM national conference of May 14-15 in Detroit. It is from Detroit Workers' Voice #48, May 13, 2005. (CV #36, Sept. 2005).
What path toward an independent workers' movement?
Build the rank-and-file struggle or illusions in the liberal Democrats?
On October 17 last year, 10,000 workers and activists in Washington, DC rallied to the call of the Million Worker March. This call did not merely attack Bush and his neo-con cabal. It raised to some extent the issue of building the workers' movement separate from the capitalist politicians. Led by dissident union leaders, the MWM departed from the standpoint of the main AFL-CIO leaders of subordinating everything to the presidential campaign of the pro-war and pro-business Democrat, John Kerry. The AFL-CIO leadership sought to strangle the MWM, but the demo was held anyway.
We in the Communist Voice Organization (CVO) attended the demo of last October. We knew that the break of the MWM leaders with the main AFL-CIO officialdom was only partial and temporary, and we wrote about this in our leaflets. But we also saw that the MWM had aroused interest in a section of workers who were looking to find a way to struggle. Since the October demo, we have taken part in the Detroit committee of the MWM (the MWM-Detroit), the speakout in Detroit on February 5, and various activities promoted by the MWM-Detroit. We have kept workers around us informed of the stands and activities of the MWM.
But the MWM-Detroit has increasingly oriented its work towards allying with liberal Detroit politicians in the Democratic Party and with the trade union bureaucrats. It has ignored the lesson of the attempt of the AFL-CIO and pro-Democratic Party activists to strangle the MWM, and has instead sought to patch the rift between the MWM and the liberal circles. MWM-Detroit policy has become similar to that of the Workers World Party, which seeks to organize national movements hand-in-hand with big-name liberals and the labor officialdom. The national MWM leadership is apparently adopting the same policy. And the present conference is likely to orient the MWM towards building the National Conference of Cities, which would mean tying the workers' movement to the liberal wing of the Democratic Party.
Such stands have increasingly sucked the life out of the MWM-Detroit. And it seems to have led the national MWM to an impasse. The question of orientation is the major question facing the present MWM conference.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
We believe that workers and activists of different beliefs and trends can unite in various struggles and broader types of organization. But nothing durable can be built on verbal allegiance to class independence while in practice something else is going on. Unity will arise among activists who are taking up the tasks necessary to revive the workers' movement. What follows are some of the crucial tasks.
Go to the workers and poor directly. Many activists think that alliances with the union officialdom and getting them to endorse their cause is the key to organizing the workers. Not so. There is a gulf between the policy of the union officials and the interests of the rank and file. The union bureaucrats are verbally in favor of some worthwhile reforms, but they aren't interested in a militant workers' movement fighting for them. Look, for example, at how Andy Stern and the SEIU leadership "supported" the October 17 MWM march in words, but had the rank and file campaigning for Kerry in deeds. And there's also the issue that there is not even weak organization among the vast majority of workers and poor.
Thus activists must reach workers by going directly to the plant gates, by developing contacts inside the workplaces, by distributing literature in the working-class communities, etc. At union-called meetings or pickets, appeal to the rank and file. The key thing isn't contact with the union officials. It's contact with the workers and developing ties with those interested in a real struggle.
Expose the Democrats and the AFL-CIO officialdom. Efforts to reach the workers and poor must call attention to the sabotage of the workers' movement by the Democrats and the union officials. The Democrats and the AFL-CIO officialdom don't want a militant workers' movement. The union officials, when they do not simply accept concessions, sap the fighting capacity of the rank and file. Just look at how they sabotaged the 1995 Detroit newspaper workers' strike by obeying court orders to dismantle militant mass pickets that were putting the heat on newspaper management. There's no sense talking about class independence or a militant workers' movement without exposing the forces that are undermining this.
Various activists raise the issue of a workers' political party. No doubt the workers need their own political stand and party. But faith in the Democrats or those with similar politics is harmful. The workers need their own party, but it must be a party that places militant class action in the fore. Some MWMers support the Labor Party. But the Labor Party, for all its talk of independence from the Democrats, still says "it would be naive to expect that labor and its allies can afford to completely abandon its relationship with the Democratic Party." (See Labor Party web site article "After the Elections: What Next?" by Labor Party National Organizer Mark Dudzic). And the Labor Party relies on a section of the bankrupt union bureaucracy.
Encourage independent forms of organization. In order for the militant sentiments of workers to have force, they need organization which can provide an alternative to their present official forms. They need rank-and-file networks of various kinds in the workplaces, within the unions and in the workers' communities. There is no simple formula for this. What's important is to find forms that provide active participation by the workers and tap into their desire for class action. For example, in some circumstances, it may be possible to set up networks of workers that carry on activity inside a workplace. Or there may be cases where ways can be found to link up workers who reject the sellout policies of the union leaders during a strike or other struggle.
Independent organization in no way means being "anti-union". Actually it is organization independent of today's suffocating labor bureaucracies that allows the workers' struggle to develop. And this lays the basis for real fighting unions in the future.
Rely on mass action. The workers' cause has never really advanced without relying on militant mass action. Protests, strikes and rebellions that defy the capitalist establishment are what will change the status quo. But the AFL-CIO leadership uses the union apparatus as a campaign headquarters for two-faced politicians. And it's no better when MWM leaders promote liberal politicians. Activists should lend their support to mass actions of the workers. They should encourage the workers to resist efforts of union officials or liberal community or movement leaders to tone down their actions to what's acceptable to the powers-that-be.
The task of organizing the workers independently is not likely to immediately result in sweeping victories. Under present conditions of lull in the class struggle, independent worker organization will be relatively small. But protracted work in this direction can push forward the sporadic struggles that break out today. And work to build class independence is the only thing that can lay the groundwork for the major class battles of the future.
What path toward an independent workers' movement?
Build the rank-and-file struggle or illusions in the liberal Democrats?
On October 17 last year, 10,000 workers and activists in Washington, DC rallied to the call of the Million Worker March. This call did not merely attack Bush and his neo-con cabal. It raised to some extent the issue of building the workers' movement separate from the capitalist politicians. Led by dissident union leaders, the MWM departed from the standpoint of the main AFL-CIO leaders of subordinating everything to the presidential campaign of the pro-war and pro-business Democrat, John Kerry. The AFL-CIO leadership sought to strangle the MWM, but the demo was held anyway.
We in the Communist Voice Organization (CVO) attended the demo of last October. We knew that the break of the MWM leaders with the main AFL-CIO officialdom was only partial and temporary, and we wrote about this in our leaflets. But we also saw that the MWM had aroused interest in a section of workers who were looking to find a way to struggle. Since the October demo, we have taken part in the Detroit committee of the MWM (the MWM-Detroit), the speakout in Detroit on February 5, and various activities promoted by the MWM-Detroit. We have kept workers around us informed of the stands and activities of the MWM.
But the MWM-Detroit has increasingly oriented its work towards allying with liberal Detroit politicians in the Democratic Party and with the trade union bureaucrats. It has ignored the lesson of the attempt of the AFL-CIO and pro-Democratic Party activists to strangle the MWM, and has instead sought to patch the rift between the MWM and the liberal circles. MWM-Detroit policy has become similar to that of the Workers World Party, which seeks to organize national movements hand-in-hand with big-name liberals and the labor officialdom. The national MWM leadership is apparently adopting the same policy. And the present conference is likely to orient the MWM towards building the National Conference of Cities, which would mean tying the workers' movement to the liberal wing of the Democratic Party.
Such stands have increasingly sucked the life out of the MWM-Detroit. And it seems to have led the national MWM to an impasse. The question of orientation is the major question facing the present MWM conference.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
We believe that workers and activists of different beliefs and trends can unite in various struggles and broader types of organization. But nothing durable can be built on verbal allegiance to class independence while in practice something else is going on. Unity will arise among activists who are taking up the tasks necessary to revive the workers' movement. What follows are some of the crucial tasks.
Go to the workers and poor directly. Many activists think that alliances with the union officialdom and getting them to endorse their cause is the key to organizing the workers. Not so. There is a gulf between the policy of the union officials and the interests of the rank and file. The union bureaucrats are verbally in favor of some worthwhile reforms, but they aren't interested in a militant workers' movement fighting for them. Look, for example, at how Andy Stern and the SEIU leadership "supported" the October 17 MWM march in words, but had the rank and file campaigning for Kerry in deeds. And there's also the issue that there is not even weak organization among the vast majority of workers and poor.
Thus activists must reach workers by going directly to the plant gates, by developing contacts inside the workplaces, by distributing literature in the working-class communities, etc. At union-called meetings or pickets, appeal to the rank and file. The key thing isn't contact with the union officials. It's contact with the workers and developing ties with those interested in a real struggle.
Expose the Democrats and the AFL-CIO officialdom. Efforts to reach the workers and poor must call attention to the sabotage of the workers' movement by the Democrats and the union officials. The Democrats and the AFL-CIO officialdom don't want a militant workers' movement. The union officials, when they do not simply accept concessions, sap the fighting capacity of the rank and file. Just look at how they sabotaged the 1995 Detroit newspaper workers' strike by obeying court orders to dismantle militant mass pickets that were putting the heat on newspaper management. There's no sense talking about class independence or a militant workers' movement without exposing the forces that are undermining this.
Various activists raise the issue of a workers' political party. No doubt the workers need their own political stand and party. But faith in the Democrats or those with similar politics is harmful. The workers need their own party, but it must be a party that places militant class action in the fore. Some MWMers support the Labor Party. But the Labor Party, for all its talk of independence from the Democrats, still says "it would be naive to expect that labor and its allies can afford to completely abandon its relationship with the Democratic Party." (See Labor Party web site article "After the Elections: What Next?" by Labor Party National Organizer Mark Dudzic). And the Labor Party relies on a section of the bankrupt union bureaucracy.
Encourage independent forms of organization. In order for the militant sentiments of workers to have force, they need organization which can provide an alternative to their present official forms. They need rank-and-file networks of various kinds in the workplaces, within the unions and in the workers' communities. There is no simple formula for this. What's important is to find forms that provide active participation by the workers and tap into their desire for class action. For example, in some circumstances, it may be possible to set up networks of workers that carry on activity inside a workplace. Or there may be cases where ways can be found to link up workers who reject the sellout policies of the union leaders during a strike or other struggle.
Independent organization in no way means being "anti-union". Actually it is organization independent of today's suffocating labor bureaucracies that allows the workers' struggle to develop. And this lays the basis for real fighting unions in the future.
Rely on mass action. The workers' cause has never really advanced without relying on militant mass action. Protests, strikes and rebellions that defy the capitalist establishment are what will change the status quo. But the AFL-CIO leadership uses the union apparatus as a campaign headquarters for two-faced politicians. And it's no better when MWM leaders promote liberal politicians. Activists should lend their support to mass actions of the workers. They should encourage the workers to resist efforts of union officials or liberal community or movement leaders to tone down their actions to what's acceptable to the powers-that-be.
The task of organizing the workers independently is not likely to immediately result in sweeping victories. Under present conditions of lull in the class struggle, independent worker organization will be relatively small. But protracted work in this direction can push forward the sporadic struggles that break out today. And work to build class independence is the only thing that can lay the groundwork for the major class battles of the future.
- The war on city workers and the poor in Detroit
- Alliance with Democratic politicians and union bureaucrats
- Democratic Mayor and City Council vs. the workers
- Sugarcoating concessions as "equality of sacrifice"
- Cheerleading for pro-concessions politicians
- Stand of the local union bureaucrats and MWM-Detroit's response
- The National Conference of Cities
- Building the independent workers' movement