Swabeck Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page
From New Militant, Vol. II No. 17, 2 May 1936, p. 2.
Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL).
With the organization of Labor’s Non-Partisan League, the Labor party question has come into new prominence. It is a peculiar kind of prominence and it is a new version of this question. At the same time it is the most genuine indication yet presented of what a future labor party will actually be.
The sponsors of this organization, among whom are John L. Lewis of the United Mine Workers, George Berry of the printing pressmen’s union and Sidney Hillman of the Amalgamated Clothing Workers, have announced that their present objective is the re-election of Roosevelt in 1936. That task accomplished, it is intimated, the League may become the precursor of an American labor party or third party of labor, farmer, liberal and progressive elements. This is the way it is now offered to the working class. Starting out with the re-election of Roosevelt, such a party, when emerging full fledged, would have for its base the New Deal program.
This is not surprising. An examination of the present labor party
trends, the position of the trade union leadership – which, it
is to be remembered, is still the authentic spokesman of the movement
it represents – and the actual role that a labor party can play
in the stage of capitalist decay, should convince intelligent workers
that what is intimated through the creation of Labor’s
Non-Partisan League is a fairly true picture of coming events.
Let us compare this with the labor party idea sponsored by the Stalinists in their present hurricane campaign. There is no need to ignore their violent disavowal of the Lewis, Berry, Hillman coalition or its present aims, for even as a pretense that much would be necessary. With this we need not be seriously concerned. In politics, intentions or desires are of little account, even declarations have validity only when accompanied by corresponding deeds. But, above all, it is the objective logic of the position that is the decisive criterion. Leaving all outward appearances aside the fundamental issue therefore remains: what will be the objective result of these two positions on the labor party question? And in it we shall be sure to find a resemblance as striking as two eyeballs.
In outward appearance there are differences. In origin and
gestation the differences may seem to the less discerning as if in
open conflict. But opportunist trends easily meet regardless of
origin. Labor’s Non- Partisan League gestated from the New Deal
program and its spokesmen are still very cautious about future
perspectives. In words they indicate only vaguely the labor party or
third party direction. They have no illusions about a serious labor
party movement in 1936. But they see cleary the leftward trends in
the trade union movement which have been manifested especially in
recent strikes, and they understand that these trends will also
sooner or later endeavor to find political expression.
In regard to these developments the Lewis-Hillman group, which is credited with the new strategy, has again proven its ability to gauge the moods of the masses more accurately than the craft conscious bureaucrats. Progressives in certain questions of trade union organization, this group is Rooseveltian in political ideology. This means that it is a conscious supporter of the capitalist system. And for this reason it has set for itself the immediate task of canalizing the trends in the movement for independent political action into the safe channels of support of the pseudo- reform measures of the New Deal. To secure in actuality these measures – which are even too radical for finance capital and for the most part ruled out by the Supreme Court – with Roosevelt as long as this is possible and later through a new political instrument; this is the way the question is presented to appear in palatable form to the workers.
The contradiction of this strategy lies not in the linking of
support to Roosevelt in 1936 with a labor party to appear later. The
contradiction, insofar as the workers are concerned, lies in the
blurring of the class issues, in the harnessing of the slowly
developing political consciousness to a program and a movement based
purely on obtaining concessions from capitalism at a time when real
concessions can be wrung from it only to the extent that the working
class advances and organizes along revolutionary lines. The history
of the Roosevelt measures bears this out most clearly. Therefore, so
long as the developing political consciousness of the workers can be
thus harnessed capitalism remains safe to continue its
exploitation.
This is also the contradiction of the Stalinist campaign for a labor party. But this glib propaganda on the question, insofar as they influence class conscious workers, is far more dangerous and far more criminal. Attempting to delude their followers, who sincerely want to “fight against political reaction and Fascism and against the threatening war,” they present the labor party as a means to this end. At the same time the labor party, in their version, is to be “neither socialist nor communist,” and still capable of performing these gigantic tasks. It is to be a “broad people’s movement.” What a welter of confusion and treachery. Any small town banker, or smart bourgeois lawyer, or battered down bourgeois “liberal” politician may rightfully demand his place in the “broad people’s movement.” On what grounds could they be excluded? And why should a people’s movement disparage the New Deal program?
For quite some time the Stalinists have addressed their appeals to
the Lewis’ group urging it to support the Labor party idea. It
now appears as if these appeals have not been in vain. Support for a
labor party is at least intimated. Such a party would also bear
prominently the imprint of the official trade union leadership and of
the whole coterie of elements who have no difficulty in pronouncing
the Roosevelt program and the labor party with the same accent. It is
from these elements and not from the workers that the Stalinists may
claim their just reward for services rendered in the cause of social
reformism.
Labor’s Non-Partisan League already claims for itself a widely extended support. Norman Thomas sees in this development a hopeful sign for a future farmer-labor party. David Dubinsky of the International Ladies Garment Workers threw in his support immediately, and to leave no room for misunderstanding he resigned from the Socialist party. His loyalty, to the extent that he had any, had been with the Old Guard. On what good grounds can the Old Guard decline to follow his example?
On the whole it would be difficult to deny that all the signs of labor party developments point unmistakably in one and the same direction. It could not be otherwise once a reformist party is projected. Differences in outward appearances should not deceive anybody, for the objective logic of the positions advanced along the lines of social reformism must necessarily lead to one and the same general result. Today the most genuine indication of what the actual result will be, is furnished by the Lewis, Berry, Hillman coalition – for Roosevelt toward a labor party or third party based on the New Deal program.
This can hardly be the thing that class conscious workers are looking forward to. It can hardly be an object of support to socialist workers. Their job still remains the one of building a movement for socialism.
Swabeck Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page
Last updated: 7 May 2018