The Struggle Inside the Socialist Workers Party Index | Main Document Index | ETOL Home Page
The 1984 general election is an opportunity to explain the war in Central America, the worldwide crisis of capitalist economy, the predatory nature of U.S. imperialism, the causes of unemployment and inflation, the antagonisms between world imperialism and the Soviet bureaucracy, the meaning of international working class solidarity, and the socialist solution to the crisis of humanity. These issues are interrelated. They are topics of the day. The task of the SWP in the election campaign, as in all other activities, is to explain, to educate, and in this way to reach new radicalizing layers of the working class. The question of political independence for working people, and for Blacks and other oppressed nationalities, is posed once again—more sharply than in past years. Working people are faced with the continued deterioration in their living standards; billions of dollars disappear down the sinkhole of the military budget, and the government threatens to wage an open war against the people of Central America; cutbacks in unemployment relief and other social programs are visited most harshly on Blacks, Latinos, undocumented workers, and other specially oppressed sectors; the social gains of women are increasingly eroded.
All signs indicate that Blacks and women are more conscious now than ever before of the causes of race and sex discrimination under present conditions of economic depression and mass unemployment. But a more profound form of radicalization is emerging. The cruel fact of 13 million unemployed in this country is an indictment of capitalism. Among those 13 million and their families are newly radicalized workers who never thought they would be out of work and never before questioned the values of capitalism and the right of the employers to manage our basic industries.
Large sectors of the population are suffering: the urban unemployed, thousands of dispossessed family farmers, millions of young people deprived of jobs, education, and hope. The military machine is the future for young people — that or jail for the most deprived, oppressed, and exploited.
There is a new social and political consciousness among workers and other victimized strata of the population. One of the signs of this awakening is the appearance of a nebulous unemployed movement. Another sign is the distrust of capitalist politics, the failure of the two-party system to retain credibility.
No sector of the ruling class offers any alternative to austerity and deprivation. The two capitalist parties have begun preparing for the 1984 sham battle. But at this stage they have trouble finding issues to quibble over. The urgent questions of foreign policy and domestic economy have been relegated to a gray area of political uncertainty.
The escalating war in Central America is avoided as much as possible by all six of the early announced presidential candidates in the Democratic camp. When forced to explain their equivocal positions on this issue they pretend it is Reagan’s war. They hope it will be negotiated away.
There is common agreement among all capitalist politicians in both the Republican and Democratic parties: that Cuba and Nicaragua jeopardize U.S. investments in Central America; that the U.S. government cannot afford to “lose” El Salvador, Guatemala, and other “friendly” Latin governments; that “Soviet aggression” is the main destabilizing force throughout the world; and that U.S. military might is essential. These are the underlying fallacies of “Cold War policy,” the simplistic justifications for imperialist expansion which is inherent in the capitalist system.
The capitalist politicians also agree basically on the economy. The Democrats criticize “Reaganomics“... but without practical alternatives. The economic crisis results from “wrong policy” or “miscalculation,” they say. But the problem will be resolved by the hoped-for “recovery” which they say is in sight.
They agree that “recovery” requires a lower national debt. They argue among themselves about what sectors of government spending to cut, how much to increase the military budget and how fast to undermine the living conditions of working people.
The Democrats will try to take advantage in 1984 of the hatred generated by Reagan’s policies, as Reagan took advantage of Carter’s unpopularity in 1980. But increasingly, the masses of American people are becoming suspicious.
There is little popular confidence in the desire or will of either the Republican or Democratic parties to try and bring about any change. Both appear satisfied with the more or less even division between them in government. Most workers see little difference in these two ruling parties.
Capitalist politicians can talk about “recovery.” But that does not satisfy the urgent needs of their constituents, especially the millions who are out of work. This is why preparations for the 1984 general elections are provoking frustration among political and community leaders of Blacks and other minorities. Women who seek a more meaningful role in the electoral process are likewise frustrated by the capitalist campaign strategists. The union bureaucracy is similarly shunned, receiving little recognition and no reward for past political services.
The Congress itself appears to be outside of or apart from the main political process. There is no serious debate in either house about such urgent matters of state as foreign policy or the failing economy.
This is why the established leaders of the deprived and exploited sectors of the population are frustrated as never before. They have no answers to the urgent problems of the great mass of people they claim to represent. They get no help from the employing class, as in the recent past. They are told to be patient, to preach faith in the coming economic recovery. The present upturn in the business cycle is a harbinger of good times ahead, they are told. But there is no sign of new jobs for the unemployed, of new schools for the youth, of better housing for the poor, of peace for the world. Consequently, community leaders, feminists, union leaders are all forced to respond as best they can to the demands that are made upon them by their constituencies.
The almost unanimous answer to this political situation from the reformist leaders of the Black community, from the union bureaucracy, and from the feminist politicians is to repeat what they have said before: “Elect people’s candidates on the Democratic ticket.”
This self-defeating strategy has a different meaning today than before because a new layer of the population is becoming more politically conscious. And in Black communities nationalist sentiment is growing.
The registration drives among poor people, and especially among Blacks, is getting a greater response than four years ago, at the beginning of the last presidential campaign. There are several reasons for this, but the central one is resentment against the Reagan administration.
Those reformist leaders who now seek to channel this resentment into support for the Democratic Party have discovered that in order to make the voter registration game work and produce more votes two conditions must be met. First, the “people’s candidate” must appear to be against machine politics, in substance a potential opponent of the two-party system, independent of the party apparatus. Secondly, a “people’s program” must consist of practical and achievable answers to the most pressing problems of the poor. This is what the Harold Washington campaign for mayor of Chicago did. It worked.
Other Black candidates are trying the same strategy in Philadelphia and in Boston, under different local circumstances. This is a formula for possibly increasing the number of Black elected officials, gaining a greater recognition for the needs of Black people, and winning concessions. It is sure to be tested repeatedly in this period. It is used by Jesse Jackson in his bid to gain support for a Black candidate on the 1984 Democratic presidential ticket.
Something similar is happening in the feminist movement. Feminism is gaining new adherents, and the political power of women is growing. At least forty women’s groups — including NOW, Coalition of Labor Union Women (CLUW), and the League of Women Voters — representing an estimated 15 million members — have formed an organization to register women voters. They recognize that in order to get these potential voters to the polls they must demand economic equality, the Equal Rights Amendment, abortion rights, curbs on military spending, and other reforms of special interest to women. All prominent leaders of the women’s liberation movement agree that they must seek to reform the Democratic Party. Their recent experience with the ERA and other “women’s issues” does not give them much ground for hope. Former congresswoman Bella Abzug says, “If the Democrats don’t respond, there could be a very interesting alignment of women and minorities in the future.”
The labor movement is faced with the same problems, and in some respects is trying the same strategy. Union officials occasionally remind Democratic politicians of their option to run their own union candidates in Democratic primaries, and also to run for office independent of the capitalist parties. The top bureaucracy, as represented by Lane Kirkland, has not yet developed a fully consistent strategy of seeking to become an independent force within the Democratic Party, giving the impression of potential independence of the two-party system. In this respect the AFL-CIO bureaucracy is still behind the position projected by the old CIO officialdom when it set up Labor’s Non-Partisan League in 1936.
Despite all the hesitancy there is a growing sense among local community leaders, the organizers of women’s action groups, and secondary union officials that an independent coalition of the forces they represent is necessary and possible. This was expressed by Chicago’s Black mayor Harold Washington in his endorsement of Charles Hayes, a vice president of the state AFL-CIO in Illinois, for the congressional seat vacated by Washington. He did not endorse Hayes as a Black candidate, the most able candidate on the list to represent the Black community. Washington said, “I’m endorsing Charley Hayes because I think it’s time for organized labor to have its own man in Congress.”
Washington and Hayes understand the potential power of a coalition of Blacks and unions. They also understand that any power such a coalition can eventually wield derives from its ability to satisfy the present needs of poor Blacks and victimized union members. They are unemployed or working under wage-cutting speedup conditions. Washington said, “The main issue facing us today is jobs, jobs, jobs—and Charley Hayes is the man who knows what it takes to get them.”
This is a persuasive promise. Experience shows that a Democratic member of the U.S. Congress can create no jobs. But for purposes of the election campaign such promises will bring votes for the Democrats.
The Harold Washington mayoral campaign in Chicago and Jesse Jackson’s proposal for a national Black presidential candidate give the appearance of independence. This development is distinct from the “dump Reagan” perspective of the union bureaucracy and liberal Black groups, who will line up behind the usual Democratic Party politicians. Although the Washingtons and Jacksons will likely end up in the same line, their ability to pose as “independent” at this stage makes them more attractive to the masses of the Black community. And to an increasingly dissatisfied layer of white workers as well.
This is, of course, a big contradiction for the ruling class and for those who control the Democratic Party. Proposals like Jesse Jackson is pushing can get out of hand. The dynamic of the demand for independence that he is trying to tap must go beyond the ruling class parties if it is to have any effect on the living conditions of Blacks and other victims of government cutbacks. If Jackson succeeds in corralling the anti-Reagan sentiment there is no guarantee that he can keep it within the acceptable bounds of the two-party system.
Jackson’s proposals and perspectives begin as a reflection of sentiment for independent political action in the community, but in trying to exploit that sentiment as a bargaining chip within the Democratic Party, he may help open the door to a much deeper and broader development —- a development which could go beyond the bounds that Jackson or those elements of the traditional Black leadership who support him now have in mind.
The idea of Blacks and other workers running for office gets a sympathetic hearing today — though most workers still do not see it as an immediate practical solution to their current dilemma.
The founding of the National Black Independent Political Party shows — despite the failure of the NBIPP leadership to chart an effective action program for the organization which has resulted in its virtual demise — that there is a renewed interest and willingness to consider the possibility of independent political actions within the Black community.
The development of these trends will not proceed automatically, as the case of NBIPP clearly demonstrates. There is no guarantee that an independent, mass-based party will result from this political differentiation.
The tendency toward pseudo-independent formations is likely to grow. Such developments as the Peace and Freedom Party in California and the New Alliance Party in New York may appear elsewhere. These formations give the appearance of “independence” but are tied completely to bourgeois politics. Disillusionment with Democrats and Republicans can stimulate a renewed interest in such parties.
New opportunities for the SWP in the electoral arena are better now because of the inability of the ruling class to offer palatable solutions to the social and economic crisis, and because of the resulting disarray of the two-party system. If the trend toward a rethinking of the political perspectives of Blacks, other oppressed nationalities, or of the working class in this country is to lead in a truly independent direction, then those who understand and can explain what is at stake must have the perspective of boldly taking advantage of the rising political consciousness. The SWP, as an organized political force with a clear perspective, must try to play a role in this process far beyond what our current numbers and influence in the working class would seem to make possible. We know that in a situation where the objective conditions are favorable, even a small group can make a big difference.
We are not guaranteed in advance that our efforts will qualitatively affect the outcome of events, though this is by no means excluded. But even if the masses of Blacks, of Latinos, and of working people fail to find an independent course in the 1984 elections, our consistent advocacy of this objective will win us respect and recruits from the most conscious layers, and help lay the basis for further developments.
Instead of conducting our election campaign in a routinist way, a bad habit the party has fallen into in recent years, we should mount an aggressive propaganda campaign that explains who we are, what we stand for, and what we hope to accomplish. This is the kind of campaign that will attract attention, open new opportunities for us to engage in meaningful debates, help to educate others, and also serve to advance our own education.
Our campaign must address the immediate problems and provide realistic answers. It is our duty, for example, to champion the struggles of women workers and Blacks and other minorities for affirmative action programs to protect them against discrimination in hiring where jobs are available. We have a consistent record of support for affirmative action programs, and we are therefore better qualified than most others to speak on the meaning and need of these programs today under the pressures of mass unemployment.
We are firmly convinced that unemployment can be eliminated, that the union movement is capable of creating jobs, and that the unemployed ought to turn to the unions for help in their demand for a massive public works program financed entirely by the federal government.
We know that money and resources are available for this because billions are being squandered on the arms build-up in Europe and the military intervention in Central America, the Middle East, and Asia. By explaining the connection between the economic crisis and wars and preparations for war our candidates will demonstrate that they are the most sincere and effective champions of peace.
We should not hesitate to make the “Jobs-Peace-Freedom” slogan of the August 27 demonstration in Washington this year our own. We do not embrace it as a plea for help addressed to the capitalist class and capitalist politicians, but as a call for working class action to resolve the present crisis. Consequently, our specific demands upon the capitalist rulers under the general jobs-peace-freedom goal are the following:
1. Stop the military intervention in Central America immediately, withdraw all U.S. troops from bases around the world.
2. Unilateral destruction of all nuclear weapons in the U.S. arsenal.
3. Open trade negotiations with the Soviet Union, China, the governments of East European nations, and Cuba. The objective of these negotiations should be to facilitate the exchange of commodities in a world market open to all producers.
4. Special attention to the worldwide economic crisis, with emphasis on the high rate of unemployment in the U.S. combined with the rapid rise of prices and interest rates. We urge radical and drastic solutions: a 30-hour workweek, full compensation at prevailing wages for all those seeking work for whom jobs are unavailable, a massive public works program to provide jobs for everyone, a jobs-training program for all who lack necessary experience and skills.
We know, of course, that these demands will not be granted by the employers or by the capitalist government solely because convincing arguments for them can be made. They must be fought for by the working class and all its allies. As an essential part of this struggle we advocate the organization of a labor party based on the union movement.
It is clear that our election platform as indicated by the above partial list of demands will need to be further developed and explained during the campaign. This means that our candidates cannot limit themselves to “single issue” campaigns which focus on, or “prioritize,” such slogans as “out of El Salvador,” “hands off Nicaragua,” “for a Black, Latino, Labor coalition,” or other such desirable goals.
In past campaigns, we have said that we must make the labor party the central issue of our propaganda, and we have talked about the need for a labor party. We have tried to explain what a labor party could do if it were a majority in Congress, and even what a single labor representative in Congress could do. But this is not very convincing because there is no labor party, and no sign that a labor party is being organized.
We have good evidence that the Democrats have traditionally and consistently betrayed every election promise they ever made, that Democratic administrations always serve the interests of the employers against the workers, and that working people need a labor party. But these facts must be demonstrated over and over again in campaign debates.
A serious flaw in the arguments of nearly all politicians who seek public office is their empty promises that if elected they will change the system and give some benefits to their constituents. This applies to Harold Washington and Charles Hayes as much as to any other politician who promises to bring results through the two-party structure of capitalist politics. This structure cannot be reformed. It must be destroyed.
We recognize that the grip of the Democratic and Republican parties has been weakened by the failure of the ruling class in this present crisis. Masses of people no longer have confidence in capitalist values, including the present electoral system. Our candidates will explain this.
But we must also explain that whatever gains workers make will be through their own efforts, as has always been the case. They cannot expect elected officeholders to give them jobs. This happens only for a favored few, not for the great mass of unemployed.
Workers, Blacks, and other minorities, women, farmers, and all the natural allies of the working class who are victims of the capitalist economy will find solutions to their problems through their own independent organizations. These are the labor unions, farm associations, women’s action groups, organizations of Blacks and Hispanics. This is where the political power is. This is where the struggle must begin. Through these mass organizations it is possible to win concessions from the economic and political overlords of this country.
One of the tasks of the SWP electoral campaign is to explain how immediate demands, such as jobs, can be won. The union movement, with all its financial resources and the impressive numbers of people it can mobilize, has tried all the known methods of lobbying. All have failed.
There are other political methods.
We have discovered that begging the capitalist lawmakers for a handout does not produce anything. It is time for the victims to draft and submit their own plans for reorganization of the economy, and for a new party in the electoral arena.
It is proper for the SWP campaign to make the labor party a central issue in all our propaganda. But we cannot continue to speak about it as if it will sometime mysteriously come into being and until that happens nothing can be accomplished through electoral politics.
Our task — and our opportunity—is in explaining how the labor party can be built... through the struggle of the mass organizations of workers and poor people for immediate and transitional demands. The demand for full employment and decent living conditions will not and cannot be granted by some elected politician. Specific plans for a jobs program and for low-cost public housing must be drafted by representatives of the unions and other mass organizations. Officeholders must be told, “This is what we want.” This is different from going to Washington and to state capitals asking the capitalist lawmakers to please legislate some jobs.
The general demand for peace (which is very popular today) can be made specific if those in Congress are told to take the money from the military budget and use it for housing, roads, schools, and other useful purposes.
The demand for a 30-hour workweek is also a necessary part of the struggle for full employment and peace. The shrill cries of the employers that they cannot afford shorter hours, higher wages, better working conditions, child care centers, full-coverage medical plans, and all the other basic needs of working people and their families raise some questions about how industry is operated. Why can’t employers afford to pay workers enough to meet their basic needs? Greater public access to the business secrets of the giant corporations will answer this question. Open the books!
In the struggle for these demands it is possible that some elected politicians can be useful. If Charles Hayes becomes a congressman he can then introduce legislation that has been drafted by his constituents in the Black community and in the unions. He will discover that his Democratic Party colleagues in Congress do not favor such legislation, nor do they encourage any sign of support for such legislation by duly elected legislators... especially those elected on the Democratic ticket.
One of our important tasks is to explain how a labor party can be created. Out of these struggles for working class legislation the need for a labor party becomes clear to millions of people, and the way to organize this party is also discovered in the struggle for these demands. This is how we explain and demonstrate the way to build a labor party.
This process through which political class consciousness develops is out lined in our Transitional Program. Our candidates in the 1984 election campaign should be prepared to popularize and explain this program. A realistic election campaign of this kind will envelop all the activity of the party in the unions, the women’s movement, the antiwar movement, and the Black struggle.
The Political Committee shall begin as soon as possible to explore and develop all avenues for the use of our transitional method and demands in the 1984 election.
It is unfortunate that our presidential campaign cannot be launched before Labor Day this year as has become customary for us. We pass up a propaganda opportunity by not being able to bring our campaign to the August 27 rally in Washington, where hundreds of .thousands from most parts of the country will be hearing and talking politics. Our program, if properly presented, would surely attract attention.
The PC is instructed to prepare an initial report at the earliest possible time for full discussion by the entire party of our 1984 electoral opportunities.
SWP presidential candidates ought to be announced soon in order to participate in the early rounds of 1984 electioneering. The main political line of our campaign will be, as in the past, the need for a definitive break with ruling class parties — for independent working class political action, a labor party based on the unions; for independent Black, Chicano, and Puerto Rican political action. In this campaign our candidates have greater opportunities to explain our politics than at any time since the end of the 1940s.
The Struggle Inside the Socialist Workers Party Index | Main Document Index | ETOL Home Page | Marxists’ Internet Archive