Independent Political Action and Social Struggles in the United States

An avalanche of problems is hitting the overwhelming majority of people in the United States. No matter what problem we look at, it is impossible to ignore the role of elected and appointed officeholders, government agencies, and political institutions at the national, state, county, and city levels.

Inadequate unemployment compensation bills are grudgingly approved by Democratic and Republican politicians while more and more workers lose their jobs. The “social safety net,” which is supposed to provide minimum basic necessities, is being torn to shreds by elected lawmakers and appointed decision-makers. Local governments are responding to the soaring homeless population by passing stronger vagrancy laws and by ordering police to tear down makeshift shelters and forcibly remove homeless persons. Inadequate government funding for immunization programs has resulted in children dying from diseases which had been virtually wiped out in this country—like measles which has reached epidemic levels in major cities. Other problems plaguing our society involve the very sick public school system, the anguish and deaths caused by insufficient AIDS research and treatment, the tortured environment — list could go on and on.

A brighter-than-usual spotlight has been thrown on the interrelations between social struggles and politics—politics as it is generally defined by most people. But an even more profound relationship exists between social struggles and politics as defined by revolutionary socialists. Every economic and social struggle poses the essential political question: Who has the power to decide? This is the reality regardless of whether the participants in the fight are conscious of the political nature of their actions.

The auto workers who carried out sit-down strikes during the 1930s presented the ultimate challenge to the bosses: Who owns and controls the means of production? The seed of that challenge lies within every labor battle — no matter how small.

The struggles of African Americans, Chicanos, Latinos, and Native Americans take up fundamental questions of self-determination: Who controls our communities? Who determines our identities? Who shapes our destinies? The movement against the war in Vietnam and the recent protests against the gulf war posed key issues in class society: Who has authority over the military powers of the state? Who determines matters of war and peace? The student rights battles of the l960s — and student protest actions today — concern: Who makes the rules governing our lives and our future? The women’s liberation movement continues to defy traditional patriarchal answers to: Who controls our bodies? Who establishes our role in society. Lesbian and gay rights activists raise basic questions about the gender system which reinforces bourgeois ideology. The activities of the environmental movement are essentially a political fight over who will make the decisions over the health of our planet.

Politics is the struggle to determine the course of history. The capitalist class is fully conscious of this political reality. They are determined to remain rulers of society but they recognize the fact that they are a tiny minority acting against the needs of the majority. They maintain a system of government which gives them the power to be the prime decision-makers in our society. The current two- party system has been one of the most effective methods used by the capitalists to give the illusion that the voters have a choice while, at the same time, making sure that the domination of one class is preserved.

Independent political action is needed to smash this electoral monopoly. Independent political action is necessary to free social struggles from being strangled to death by their reliance on so- called “friends” in the two major parties.

Independent political action is not limited to election campaigns and voting but involves a broad range of activities including: strikes, picket lines, mass mobilizations and demonstrations, rallies, clinic defense actions, solidarity campaigns, boycotts, sit-ins and building takeovers, the publication of statements and appeals, and protest events of many types.

Social struggles need to include an electoral aspects what is won in the workplace and on the streets will be snatched away by state legislatures, the U. S. Congress, the White House, and the courts. There are currently three overlapping but distinct developments of independent electoral activities taking place in the labor movement, women’s rights organizations, and the African American struggle. Each one, looked at by itself, would be important.Taken together, they signify an increasing alienation from the political parties dominated by the capitalists.

The Trade Union Movement

The organized labor movement has long recognized the need for political action. The union movement has registered millions of new voters, has sponsored bills in state legislatures and the U. S. Congress, has lobbied to promote pro-labor laws, has endorsed and campaigned vigorously for candidates, and has provided platforms for politicians at local union meetings, labor conventions, and huge national marches and rallies like the 1981 and 1991 mobilizations in Washington, D.C.

The problem is not labor’s lack of consciousness about the importance of political action. The problem is the labor bureaucrats’ reliance on the two-party system. With very few exceptions, the union leadership has snuggled into the coat pockets of the Democratic Party and has organized rank-and- file support for Democratic politicians who are supposed to be “friends of labor.” This has been a formula for disaster. It has reinforced the false claim that there are indeed only two legitimate parties—one that favors working people and another that helps the bosses. It has sucked the many valuable resources of unions into the stinking swamp of compromises, deals, trade-offs and pork barrel politicking. It has restricted the ability of unions to wage militant workplace fights — because certain politicians would be embarrassed. It has prevented the labor movement from organic workers in Southern states because a serious struggle would rupture relations with the Democratic Party which includes white supremacist and anti-labor Southern politicians.

Voted into office with the help of unions, Democratic Party members in Congress paid no attention to appeals from the Eastern Airlines strikers, helped defeat a national health care program, and voted to break the railworkers’ strike by imposing compulsory arbitration which resulted in the loss of 40,000 jobs. Democrats in the House of Representatives resist approving the AFL-CIO’s top legislative priority: the Workplace Fairness Bill which would weaken the use of scabs by preventing companies from hiring replacement workers daring strikes.

The combination of union misleadership in contract negotiations and in political action has hog-tied workers’ struggle leading to concessions, cutbacks, and lost jobs. Compounding their crimes against their memberships, the labor bureaucrats have worked hand in glove with the bosses to place blame on workers in other countries. The AFL-CIO lobbied against the Free Trade Agreement on the basis that it takes jobs away from American workers by allowing companies to relocate to low-wage areas especially in Mexico where wages are about $6 a day in the maquiladoras along the border. Labor bureaucrats are among the loudest voices in the “Buy American!” chorus. Instead of promoting labor unity in the face of the employers’ offensive, the union leadership is encouraging U.S. workers to view workers in other countries as “the enemy.”

The combined weight of the employers’ attacks and the labor bureaucrats’ misleadership has not squashed the fightback spirit of many workers—as shown by packinghouse workers in Austin, Minnesota, Pittston miners, Eastern Airlines and New York Daily News employees, hospital and supermarket workers in Pennsylvania, East Coast telephone workers, teachers and hotel workers in Los Angeles, garment workers in Wisconsin, mine workers in Montana, farm workers in Michigan arid Ohio, public employees in New Jersey, clothing workers in Georgia, and auto workers in Flat Rock, Michigan. Black Workers for Justice, a group based in North Carolina, is tackling the crucial task of organizing unions in Southern states. Immigrant workers from Central America have played a key role in some recent union victories, for example, in the Justice for Janitors campaign of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). Women unionists have led significant labor battles in the public employee sector where the largest growth in organized labor has taken place.

The fightback spirit displayed by workers also involves a rejection of the political parties of the bosses. Polls of rank-and-file members in a number of unions show that 63 percent agree that the two major parties care more about big business than about working people. Over 50 percent think that it is time for the trade unions to build a new political party independent from the Democratic and Republican parties.

This is not the first time that unionists have supported the creation of such a party. But last year something significantly new and different happened: a serious effort was launched at the national level to promote the establishment of a labor party. The initiator was Tony Mazzocchi, a longtime leader of the Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union (OCAW). He issued a public invitation to unionists to become members of Labor Party Advocates (LPA). The single purpose of this formation is “to educate the public about the need for a Labor Party in the United States.” Membership in LPA means agreement with the idea that the U. S. labor movement needs its own political party, and joining LPA means members are willing to be part of an organizing committee for a labor party. There is no projection for running or endorsing candidates nor for actually establishing a party at this time.

The response to this invitation was immediate and impressive. Thousands have sent in to become charter members. Some unions have joined or endorsed or voted to send LPA materials to all of its members. Mazzocchi arid LPA members have spoken to union meetings, have been interviewed on radio programs, and have given presentations at various public forums around the country. Mass circulation newspapers as well as labor publications have published articles about Labor Party Advocates.

In the December 1991 issue of the LPA newsletter, Mazzocchi suggested that “1993 seems a good target date” for a convention of LPA members. He explained why it would be premature to attempt to rush into running candidates, acting like a political party, and writing a program. His go-slow approach is based on his understanding of the difficulties in establishing a broad-based filly representative organization which can adequately reflect and reach out to the diverse sections of the labor movement.

Women’s Liberation: Economic, Social, Political

When the women’s liberation movement emerged as an organized force in the late 1960s, one of its most important distinguishing characteristics was its independence in confronting women’s problems as an oppressed sex and as a super-exploited section of the labor force. Women relied on their own strengths, skills, strategies, and tactics. Although women utilized the legal system and lobbied lawmakers, feminists did not depend on judges or politicians — not even on sympathetic ones.

We marched in the streets. We mobilized at state capitols and in Washington, D. C.. We held public rallies and organized demonstrations. We filed lawsuits and testified at hearings. We exerted a pressure and created a climate which influenced judges to rule in favor of our rights and forced lawmakers to respond to our demands. Independence was the key to winning legal abortion, affirmative action, improvements in the treatment of rape victims, and other gains.

But our progress has been slowed down by the general attack on working people carried out by the employers and their political flunkies. Important battles have been lost due to strategies and tactics pursued by the major national organizations which are seen as the leadership of the feminist movement. A prime example of this leadership failure is the unsuccessful ten-year campaign I l~2-82] to add the Equal Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Major efforts were poured into direct lobbying of state legislators and into election campaigns for candidates promising to vote for the ERA. But the politicians failed to live up to campaign pledges and the ERA was lost although the amendment won ratification in 35 states containing a majority of the U.S. population. The losing margin was so tiny that only ten “yes” votes in three key states would have incorporated the ERA into the U.S. Constitution.

The current battle to keep abortions legal is a fresh example of why women cannot depend on politicians or judges. The U.S. Supreme Court’s 1989 ruling in a Missouri case set the stage for the ferocious struggle now going on over a woman’s right to choose. On January 21st, the Supreme Court announced it would hear the appeal of Pennsylvania’s restrictive Abortion Control Act. With the help of confirmation votes from Democratic Party senators, the two newest Supreme Court justices are expected to provide the deciding votes to overturn or, at the very least, mutilate women’s reproductive rights. Meanwhile, back in Congress, the Freedom of Choice Act is going nowhere.

Political experts and media commentators say the economy will be the biggest issue in the 1992 campaign. But here, too, women face serious problems and can expect little or no help from government agencies, the courts, and politicians. Women workers now receive seventy cents for every dollar earned by males. In the early 1980s, the ratio was fifty-nine cents to the dollar. This apparent progress for women workers is not a true closing of the wage gap but is primarily due to a combination of factors: men’s earnings have gone down, younger women have been able to break into traditionally male jobs where pay scales are higher, and there has been increased unionization of occupations which have been predominately female. But most women remain trapped in the low-wages “pink collar” job ghetto. Women of color are further victimized on the basis of their race or ethnic group.

Employment gains won by women have been watered down or erased by the courts and politicians. For example, the Civil Rights Act of 1991 limits the amount of damages which can be awarded women who are intentionally discriminated against by employers. White House campaigns and court rulings have undermined early affirmative action victories. Progress on comparable worth has been stalled by courts which have resisted the pay equity concept that workers should receive equal pay for jobs which are not identical but are comparable in terms of training, responsibilities, and so on.

Women’s frustrations with working within the two major parties poured out during a workshop at the 1989 National NOW Conference. Leading activists in the National Organization for Women described many years spent in election campaign committees for politicians who used their energies and skills to win offices, and then ignored or betrayed women’s needs. The national conference adopted a Declaration of Women’s Political Independence and an Expanded Bill of Rights for the 21st Century which constituted a basic program covering a broad range of issues.

NOW formed the Commission for Responsive Democracy to explore possibilities for a new party. The commission held a series of public hearings during 1990 and 1991, and received testimony from over 500 people including activists from many different struggles and organizations. The commission recommended that NOW provide leadership together with other constituencies to establish a new independent political party. The National NOW Board endorsed the commission’s new party resolution, and the recommendation will be taken up at the 1992 National NOW Conference.

A brochure is now being distributed soliciting memberships and supporters for New Party, USA. The brochure explains:

The attacks on affirmative action, equal opportunity, the environment, education, health care, the homeless, the poor are increasing as the political season heats up… The Supreme Court stands ready to take legal abortion away from women this year. And we are slipping further and further behind as the economy continues to falter… As both parties remain silent, the S&L and banking scandals rage, the ranks of the homeless swell and the rape of the environment escalates. Only a new party can stand up on behalf of the future because it does not have to defend the mistakes of the past… We need your help and your contributions to turn the vision of our new party into a reality.

These statements show how NOW has helped to expose the failures and betrayals of the two major parties, to educate about the need for a new independent political party because it projects a program in the interests of working people and oppressed groupings, and, to build bridges between feminists, unionists, people of color, and activists in a variety of social struggles.

At the same time, NOW has recognized continuing confusions, contradictions, and weaknesses in this development. Leading figures in New Party, USA continue to be involved in fund-raising and campaigning for candidates in the two major parties. For example, Ellie Smeal and Dolores Huerta are officers for the Fund for the Feminist Majority which sent out a letter in January urging support for the Feminization of Power Campaign. The goal is: “to inspire record-breaking numbers of feminists to run and dramatically increase the numbers of women in public office.” The letter explains: “. . .it will be these new women officeholders who will generate the long-term change necessary for women to reach full equality in this society.” The same kinds of statements are made in materials published by NOW — including letters signed by NOW President Patricia Ireland, another member of the working group which launched New Party, USA.

There is an obvious contradiction between calling for a new party and pouring energies and monies into campaigns for women running on Democratic or Republican tickets. The concept of a “feminization of power” reinforces the idea that simply electing more females will result in significant gains, and encourages illusions that the two-party system can serve women’s needs.

It is important to support the new party Initiative as a means of maintaining the momentum toward a decisive break with parties serving the interests of the ruling class.

The African American Struggle and Political Action

As a super-exploited section of working people, and as a super- oppressed minority in U.S. society, African Americans play a vanguard role in social, economic, and political struggles. There have been repeated attempts over the past 30 years to use the political process in the light for Black liberation — some attempts were pursued within a major party (like the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party) and other efforts were outside of the two major parties (like the Michigan Freedom Now Party). The departure of significant numbers of Blacks from the Democratic Party will knock away one of the most substantial props holding up the party as a major political force. Although Democratic Party politicians are dependent on the support of Blacks and even though the Republican Party is wooing African American voters, major party politicians have produced meager results for Black communities. Half of all African American children in the U. S. today live under poverty conditions. The unemployment rate for Blacks is twice as high as for whites. Over one-third of Black families in the South live in poverty. The death rate for Black infants is two times the rate for white babies.

No matter what basic necessity is studied — housing, health care, education — the overwhelming majority of African Americans remain in the lowest economic and social levels of U. S. society. This situation has not been improved by the election of more Black mayors, state legislators, or U.S. congressional members. These Black politicians are captives of the Democratic and Republican party machines, and are unable to win substantial reforms or to make over either of the parties — even if those were their original intentions. The crisis of Black leadership today is expressed in its resistance to taking the only path to genuine liberation, the only path to improvements in the quality of life for African Americans: the path of independent political action in its broadest sense and electoral action independent of the two major parties.

The presidential campaign of Ron Daniels was the only nationally significant political activity being carried out by Blacks. Daniels, who had been a deputy campaign manager for Jesse Jackson’s 1988 presidential effort, presented a strong contrast to Jackson’s attempts to keep Blacks within the Democratic Party. Daniels organized a campaign with a special focus on the demand and needs of African Americans, and with the perspective of building a coalition including all people of color, women, and working people.

Although Daniels has been a longtime activist, he is not a familiar figure to Black communities around the country. He spoke to meetings in cities scattered across the U.S., and received modest initial support from some grassroots activists, Black nationalists, environmentalists, Black ministers, unionists, and feminists Some local campaign committees were established. His campaign showed its potential to present the basic concept of independent political action, to raise programmatic demands which express the needs of working people and oppressed groups, and to encourage interaction between various social struggles.

It is crucial to support Daniels’ message to labor: “Break the monopoly of the two party system… The progressive movement must build an independent third party which can clearly and unapologetically articulate a vision, a progressive program for a new society. Labor should play a leading role in that process.” [Labor Notes, May 1991]

Support Daniels’ effort to ‘Utilize an independent presidential campaign as a vale for massive political education on the contradictions in the U. S. political-economy; to mobilize and organize the unregistered and the unemployed; to ignite a voter revolt and a mass movement with the vision, capacity and confidence to fight for power and governance.” [Leaflet for Ron Daniels for President 1992]

Daniels’ platform includes: “Fight for the ELIMINATION OF RACISM AND ALL FORMS OF DISCRIMINATION based on race, nationality, sex, sexual orientation, religion, or disability. COMPLETE EQUALITY FOR WOMEN and protection of reproductive rights for women (the right to choose to have an abortion)… full employment with decent jobs with good wages and benefits… a Housing Bill of Rights to make affordable housing accessible to all… protection of workers’ rights to organize and maintain unions… Increased investment of resources to guarantee a QUALITY, EQUAL EDUCATION FOR ALL… RESPECT FOR THE SOVEREIGNTY AND TREATY RIGHTS OF NATIVE AMERICANS; economic restoration and economic justice for all Native American peoples. . .respect for the right of self-determination of all peoples and nations… withdrawal of all U.S. troops from foreign soil; complete nuclear disarmament.” [Leaflet with framework for platform]

FIT Welcomes Motion Toward Independent Political Action

Our positive approach to Labor Party Advocates, to the NOW new party initiative, and to Ron Daniels is based on our appreciation of the central role of independent political action in the process which will culminate in the revolutionary transformation of capitalist society. We see an independent political party as a vital organizational form to mobilize massive struggles — not just during election campaigns but in an ongoing fashion. There is no guarantee that these current developments will grow into that kind of party. We are not asking for warranties, and we’re not demanding perfection. For the first time in many, many years significant steps are being taken to break with the twin parties of capitalism and to move in the direction of independent class struggle politics. This an exciting development which we support and we want to be a part of and we intend to promote.

♦ ♦ ♦