Photo by Samuel Regan-Asante on Unsplash

Do Workers Need a Labor Party?

The Democratic Party claims to support the interests of workers and the poor. In reality, the Democrats are a run by and for the capitalists. They are a party of genocide in Gaza, gigantic military budgets, deportation of immigrants, austerity and budget cuts, tax breaks for the rich, labor law restrictions and preserving the power and profit of capital. As former Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, put it “We are a capitalist party!”

It takes the utterly reactionary Republicans to make the Democrats look acceptable. However, a lesser evil is still an evil. We don’t defeat evil by voting for evil. Marxists have long made the case against voting for Republicans, Democrats or any capitalist politicians. Here are a few articles making the Marxist case against voting for capitalist parties:

https://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1967/01/lesser.htm

**https://firebrand.red/.../why-socialists-dont-vote-for.../**

**https://medium.com/.../oppose-both-major-parties-but-is...**

Why Marxists Support a Labor or Workers’ Party

If the Republicans and Democrats are not viable options for workers and the poor, who should workers vote for?

Marxists have generally supported the movement for an independent labor or workers party Why? Workers voting for their own class and against capitalist parties is a sign of class consciousness in the political realm. More importantly, workers thinking of themselves as a class furthers class consciousness in general. It makes them more likely to struggle against the interests of the capitalists. The resulting working-class struggle can make it more likely that workers can win reforms from the capitalist state.

Despite this, Marxists have sometimes opposed engaging in the fight for a labor party as Trotsky did in the early 30s.:

https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1932/xx/lp.htm

The reason for a critical approach to labor parties is that broad labor or socialist parties are generally dominated by reformism. This is the idea that capitalism is reformable into a decent system. Further, reformism argues that because capitalism is reformable, revolution is detrimental to winning what workers need. Reformism therefore opposes revolution and often vigorously opposes revolutionaries It goes on to say that the only practical strategy is winning gradual change usually through elections. Electoralism, the strategy of relying on elections for social change goes hand in hand with reformism This means that a labor party focus is a double-edged sword. At some points it can promote the class struggle. At other points reformist leaders retard the struggle and can even become counter-revolutionary. —

Why Do Labor Parties Accommodate to Capitalism?

There are several reasons that broad labor parties are almost always reformist. If the goal is to fix capitalism, they must preserve it to fix it. As British Marxist Ian Birchall put it, labor parties become the doctors of capitalism, not its gravediggers. This means that when the choice is revolution to overthrow capitalism or defending it against revolution, they side with capitalism.

Another reason for reformism is that labor parties or broad socialist parties are usually led by the middle class. Labor parties are usually led by the union bureaucracy which is a layer between the workers and the bosses. Labor officials play a mediating role, selling the workers to the bosses at a higher price than unorganized workers would get. They have their own interests. The chief one is to maintain their mediating role. This is what gives them perks and purpose. A socialist revolution would abolish their position by giving all power to ordinary workers. Labor bureaucrats become convinced that their mediating role is essential to the survival of workers’ conditions. They therefore oppose revolution and articulate a reformist position. In the U.S. today, this is pro-capitalist liberal reformism. In other countries it has often been “socialist” reformism.

The most fundamental reason labor and other broad parties become reformist is Marx’s adage in the Communist Manifesto: “The ruling ideas of any age are ever the ideas of the ruling class.”. In a non-revolutionary period, most people are not revolutionaries. This tautology means that a mass labor party or socialist party will be dominated by reformist ideas. Most people in these parties will think that they can win the improvements they want by reforming capitalism, not overthrowing it.

Limitations of Labor Parties — — the limits of reformism

How has this worked in practice? :

In World War I , the mass socialist and labor parties in Europe all followed their own ruling classes and supported their war. Instead of “workers of the world unite” they said “workers of the world cut each other’s’ throats” The Labor Party in Britain, the Socialist Party in France, the Social Democrats of Germany, and Austria etc. all voted for the funds necessary to carry out the imperialist slaughter. They followed the logic of defending their government and system in order to reform it. They owned property which they didn’t want the governments to seize.

This was not an aberration. These parties have continued to support their ruling classes in imperialist ventures ever since then. In over 100 years of reformism in Europe, none of these parties have overthrown capitalism or even made that a serious goal.

In Germany, the Social Democrats formed a government after World War I which defeated the rising working-class revolution and killed the two main leaders of the revolutionary movement, Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebnicht.

A more recent example was the Popular Front government of Salvador Allende in Chile. Allende was elected President on the Socialist Party ticket in 1970. The SP was a broad reformist party. Allende proclaimed the “Chilean Road to Socialism”, gradually reforming the system using the capitalist governmental apparatus. Workers took his election as a sign to struggle. They occupied factories. They took land from the landlords. They formed their own organizations, the cordones industriales. Allende was frightened by the radical action of the workers and told them to return the factories to the bosses. This weakened the working-class movement to the point that on Sept. 11 ,1973, the military overthrew the government and instituted a right-wing military dictatorship that took decades for Chile to recover from.

Reformism seemed practical but ended up in disaster including the death and exile of thousands of workers.

Today in Europe, the broad reformist socialist and labor parties are playing a similar role to the Democrats in the U.S. Because they are committed to preserving capitalism to reform it, they go along as capitalism moves to the right. The Democratic Party here and the Social Democrats and Labor parties in Europe have embraced neoliberalism ( budget cuts, lower tax rates for the rich, deregulation, weakening labor laws). This move to the right has opened space for the Far Right to grow in Europe as MAGA has grown here.

What kind of Party Do Workers Need ?— A Revolutionary Party

If a broad reformist party will not solve the problems workers face, what kind of party do we need.?

First, what will it take to meet the fundamental needs of workers and the oppressed? Marxists believe that capitalism cannot meet the needs of the vast majority. It is founded on the exploitation of the working class. The profits of capitalism come from the unpaid labor of workers. In order to divide the workers against each other, capitalism promotes oppression, racism, sexism, LGBTQ bashing, attacks on immigrants etc. These are not just bad features that can be reformed away. They are foundations of the system. They were not legislated in and they cannot be legislated out.

Another important feature of capitalism is that its various states are set up to facilitate the needs of capitalism. Capitalists control the governments through bribery, placement of personnel and if necessary, economic threats. The goal of capitalist governments is to create a “good business climate”. This means favoring profit over wages and other human needs. The capitalist state, as shown in Chile, is an obstacle to any transition away from capitalism. The capitalist state must be eliminated and replaced by a workers’ state, the democratic organization of the working class

The pro-working-class reforms we have won came from struggles against capitalism and its state. Even though the capitalists control the state, they will feel compelled to grant reforms if workers are organized enough to threaten the wealth and power of the capitalist class.

This is similar to labor negotiations. Bosses own the workplace. However, if workers are organized and prepared to strike, the bosses may grant wage increases to keep production going. They will grant concessions when compelled to. This is the same in the political arena. The state represents the collective needs of the capitalist class and will only give major concessions when forced to.

If it will take a revolution to meet the needs of the working class, we need a revolutionary party to organize that. In the rough and tumble of a revolutionary situation, organization is vital. The reformists will be organized. The capitalists will be organized. The revolutionary workers also need to be organized.

The only time workers have completed a revolution, smashed the state and taken political power on a national scale was in Russia in 1917. This was also the only time a revolutionary party was large enough and well-organized enough to lead to victory. Countless other revolutionary situations have erupted over the last 100+ years. The tragedy was that there was no party to lead the struggle to victory

What do we do to make sure there is a large enough revolutionary party when a revolution breaks out? Revolutionaries need to organize now, grow their organizations as much as possible, and engage in struggle and political education. Revolutionary organizations will necessarily be a minority of the working class in a non-revolutionary period, because the ruling ideas are the ideas of the ruling class. The working class is divided politically. A majority of workers will be reformist at best until the revolutionary crisis breaks out. Then consciousness can rapidly change and a majority of workers as in Russia in 1917 can become revolutionary.

In order to be effective in leading the revolution, the revolutionary organization and ultimately party must be confined to those who understand the need for revolution We should aim at as large a party as possible, but not water down the politics to become a majority before the revolutionary crisis.

What is relation of Revolutionary organization to a Labor party?

The goal of revolutionaries is to build a revolutionary organization and ultimately a party. This goal must dictate how revolutionaries relate to labor parties and other broad socialist parties.

As noted above, revolutionaries generally support the movement for a labor party in order to increase class consciousness. However, within that movement they argue for need for revolution and therefore revolutionary politics, — -not reformism. They must act as the left wing of the movement, not its leading spokespeople.

When a labor party is established, revolutionaries will often call for a vote for it as an expression of political class consciousness. This support will be very critical since the party even at the beginning will be reformist. The slogan of revolutionaries in Britain for example was “Vote Labor With No Illusions.” They argued that reforms come from struggle against capitalism, not electing “better” representatives.

As the great historian Howard Zinn put it “What matters most is not who is sitting in the White House, but who is sitting in and, who is striking “The Social Democratic reforms in the 50s and 60’s in Europe were due to stronger labor movement which also resulted in Labor and Socialist candidates being elected. The labor vote itself can put pressure on capitalists to buy back working class support with reforms.

Should Revolutionaries be the leaders and spokespeople of a Labor Party?

Because a Labor Party will inevitably be reformist, revolutionaries should not be its spokespeople. To lead da Labor Party is to champion reformism, whether the revolutionaries want to or not. Focusing on electing Labor candidates implies that elections are the way to win reforms. Revolutionaries cannot lead a reformist movement without being pulled by reformism.

This is what happened to the Militant Tendency in Britain. It started out revolutionary as part of the Trotskyist current. It had a strategic orientation to the Labor Party from the 1940s on. Its strategy was to become part of the Labor Party and try to influence this large reformist party toward revolution. What happened instead was that the Militant was pulled toward reformism. Over time it abandoned the Marxist view of the need to smash the state. It called for police reform instead of abolition. It compromised with British imperialism on Ireland and the conflict over the Falklands Islands in the 1980s. It took a quasi-Zionist position on Israel.

Engels described the dilemma of revolutionaries taking over government when the situation was not ripe for revolution. This applies as well to revolutionaries leading reformist political parties :

The worst thing that can befall a leader of an extreme party is to be compelled to take over a government in an epoch when the movement is not yet ripe for the domination of the class which he represents and for the realization of the measures which that domination would imply. What he can do depends not upon his will but upon the sharpness of the clash of interests between the various classes, and upon the degree of development of the material means of existence, the relations of production and means of communication upon which the clash of interests of the classes is based every time.

Is the Labor Party the next necessary step for workers in the U.S.?

Not necessarily! We cannot predict whether there will be a mass labor party in the U.S. before a revolution. Since consciousness can change rapidly, it is not necessary to first have mass social democratic reform consciousness before mass revolutionary consciousness.

Labor/Socialist parties won social welfare during boom of 50s-60s when capitalism was healthy and expanding

Today, capitalism is in neoliberal crisis and decline. Capitalism in decline is clawing back reforms won in the past. Social Democratic and Labor Parties are enacting austerity in Europe now. The key obstacle is capitalist dominance of state — -NOT which party is in office. Even a Labor Party in power would be forced to carry out capitalist imperatives

Revolutionaries Fight for Reforms but Reject Reformism

Reformism is the enemy of revolution, especially during a revolutionary crisis. Revolution does not come from gradual radicalization of reform parties any more than socialism comes from the gradual reform of capitalism. The victory of revolution comes from opposition to reformism and capitalism by revolutionary organization during crisis. Reformism must be defeated, not completed.

A majority of the working class will only become revolutionary in a revolutionary period. Until then revolutionaries fight alongside workers for reform and argue for revolution and the revolutionary party.

Revolutionaries fight for reforms but are clear on what it will take. They don’t sew illusions in the reformability of capitalism

Revolutionaries build revolutionary politics in opposition to reformist illusions. They participate in all struggles for working-class power but with open revolutionary politics.

As Marx said in the Communist Manifesto:

“The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions.”

Please join Seattle Revolutionary Socialists for a discussion on this question on Tuesday May 19 at 7 PM Pacific on bit.ly/srszoomlink