Where is the USA going? Discussion document by the WIL - part two

For over 30 years, American workers have been under assault. For decades, there were very few fight backs, and even fewer successes. Between 1973 and 2007, private sector unionization decreased by over 75 per cent and wealth inequality increased by 40 per cent. Strike levels fell to record lows. Politically, things shifted ever-further to the right as the Democrats and Republicans fell over each other to carry out the wishes of the capitalists. The labor leaders offered nothing but the failed policy of “partnership with the bosses” on the shop floor and at the polls. Despite the heroic traditions of the past, this led many—even on the Left—to believe that Americans “have it too good,” and have somehow become “bourgeoisified” and lack revolutionary potential.

[The following draft document on U.S. Perspectives was adopted by the National Committee of the Workers International League at its meeting of August 25, 2012. It is now being discussed throughout the WIL and will be discussed, amended as needed, and voted on at our National Congress in November. If you agree with the broad outlines put forward below, contact us for more information on joining the WIL. Let’s work together to bring these ideas to more and more workers and youth and to fight for socialism!]

The labor movement

But the “mole of history” has been burrowing underground this entire time. A pay cut here, a home foreclosure there; rising health costs here, a factory shuttered and off-shored there. Little by little, the economic basis for the American Dream has been whittled away, and with it, the illusions that capitalism is the “best of all possible worlds.” With it, the doctrine of “American exceptionalism,” the idea that the U.S. is somehow insulated from the problems of the world will be shattered. The attacks of September 11, the economic crisis, and the ongoing decline of U.S. imperialism are just a few examples of this process, which will be exacerbated in the future.

We have always had supreme confidence in the U.S. working class. We understood that workers were learning from their experience and would inevitably enter the path of struggle at a certain stage. After all, a pendulum can only swing so far to the right before swinging back to the left. And the further it goes in one direction, the more dramatically it will swing the opposite way once the tide turns. It is still early in the process, and we should not exaggerate, but the colossal potential for the future is clearly present.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reports that in 2011, 14.8 million wage and salary workers in the U.S. were members of a labor union. This represents 11.8 percent of all workers, down from and 12.3% in 2009, but essentially unchanged from the 11.7% rate in 2010. In 1983, the first year for which comparable data is available, the union membership rate was 20.1 percent, or 17.7 million union workers.

However, the rate is vastly different in the private and public sectors. After decades of being hammered by layoffs and off-shoring, private sector unionization is at just 6.9 percent, while it is 36.2 percent in the public sector. Workers in education, training, and library occupations are unionized at the highest rate, 36.8%, while sales and related occupations have the lowest rate, at just 3.0%. This explains the relentless drive by the capitalists in going after and demonizing the public sector.
The BLS records show the following average major work stoppages per year for the last few decades:

2001-2010 - 17

1991-2000 - 34

1981-1990 - 69

1971-1980 - 269

According to the BLS, in 2011, there were 19 major strikes or lockouts involving 1,000 or more workers and lasting at least one shift. This is up from 11 in 2010 and the all-time low of just 5 in 2009. In 2011, major strikes and lockouts idled 113,000 workers for 1.02 million lost workdays, compared to 45,000 workers and 302,000 lost workdays in 2010, and just 13,000 workers and 124,000 lost workdays in 2009. The largest work stoppage in 2011 was the Verizon workers’ strike in the Northeast, involving 45,000 workers and 450,000 lost workdays.

This puts us at roughly the low level of 2001-2010, a decade when total work days lost due to major work stoppages declined over 90 percent as compared to the tumultuous decade of 1971-1980. Nonetheless, we can see a growth trend in union struggles over the last 2 years, although the process of the revival of the labor movement will not be linear. We may still be a long way from the levels of the 1970s, but the labor movement—which has been declared dead many times over the last 150 years—is far from buried. Similar conditions lead to similar results. We are entering a period far more like the 1930s or the 1970s than the 2000s, and we can be sure the class will begin to move accordingly. The capitalists have another thing coming if they think the sleeping giant of labor will take these kicks lying down.

These strike figures should be understood in the context that as the ruling class has gone on the offensive, the labor leaders have had a completely inadequate response. The American labor leaders do not see any alternative to capitalism and are therefore stuck in the logic of the system, counseling workers to accept givebacks and wait for “better times.” “Better times” are not to be had when capitalism is in its death agony.

The state of New York has the highest unionization rate, at 24.1 percent, while North Carolina has the lowest, at just 2.9 percent. However, these numbers do not tell the whole story. Over the last few decades, there has been a form of “off-shoring” to the South, as big manufacturers move production to the low-wage, non-union South instead of the East coast, Midwest, or foreign countries. This has produced a volatile mix of conditions; the South is a veritable powder keg of the class struggle, just waiting to explode. We must follow developments in the South, including Texas, with great attention, and must work toward building strong and solid branches in this region of the country.

At a certain stage, there will be waves of strikes, millions more workers joining existing unions or forming new ones, rank-and-file opposition currents forming in the unions, with leaders pushed out or pushed to the left, and eventually even general strikes and splits in the unions. In Wisconsin and then in Oakland, the question of the general strike was placed on the table for the first time in many decades, despite the confused and limited nature of these calls.

Although there are fewer industrial workers in the country than in the past, this means fewer workers have more power in their hands, for the example, the dockworkers. Over 90% of world commerce is now seaborne. Just 40,000 unionized longshore workers control the movement of goods in all major U.S. ports, with the power to shut them down, costing the bosses billions of dollars per day. Similar strength is also concentrated in the hands of other transport and transit workers, communications workers, utilities workers, and so on. We should never lose sight of the fact that although greatly reduced numerically and as a percentage of the workforce, unionized workers have enormous potential power if mobilized. Add to that the millions of workers who would like to be in a union, and you have a powerful force to change society.

The growth of the proletariat of the service industry has come about in the last 40 years as a result of the decline of manufacturing in the USA. However, the working class in this sector does have the power of example: if they go out on strike and shut their company down, this will embolden the more powerful sectors of the working class. It should also be noted that if, for example, Wal-Mart workers went out on strike, this would tear into the profits of one of the biggest corporations around today. The same could be said for Apple.

In the cynical political calculations of the two main parties, organized labor as an electoral bloc is no longer a “must have” constituency. They are seen merely as a source of campaign funding. In the past, in exchange for guaranteeing class peace and getting union voters to the polls, the union bureaucracy carved out a nice niche for itself. But reformism has no base without reforms. The labor leaders will eventually be compelled to do something to at the very least appear to be fighting in the interests of the workers they are supposed to represent. Otherwise, they stand to lose their positions. For, if the unions perish, so too do their perks and privileges. For example, they may demagogically threaten strikes or a labor party to try to gain some leverage from the Democrats. However, this could unleash forces that could snowball out of their control.

In the recent period we have seen some important developments, which are symptomatic of what’s to come. The workers of Republic Windows and Doors in Chicago occupied their factory in December 2008, the first such occupation in the U.S. in decades. Although this tactic did not spread at that time, it shows the way forward. We saw the victory of labor in Ohio, which managed to decisively overturn Governor Kasich’s version of anti-public sector union legislation, with 61% of the voters rejecting the new law after a mass signature-gathering campaign to trigger a referendum on the issue. This is a terrific example of the power of labor if it is mobilized. Just imagine if all of this effort had been combined with getting an independent labor candidate on the ballot to fight both the Republicans and the Democrats?

We have also seen some perhaps unexpected labor disputes, with the lockouts in the NFL and now the NBA. There has been continuing labor and student unrest in Puerto Rico. There was the important strike of the Verizon workers, who used quintessential class struggle methods to disrupt production. This strike could have won if the workers hadn’t been sold short by the union leaders. There is the possibility that the workers may go out on strike again; we must be prepared to intervene if they do. Target workers have tried to organize a union in Long Island and Wal-Mart workers are doing the same at locations around the country. In New York, the Taxi Workers Alliance has now joined the AFL-CIO as its newest affiliate. The locked-out sugar beet workers in the Red River Valley of North Dakota and Minnesota have been fighting a grinding battle of attrition against American Crystal Sugar for over a year.

And in Wisconsin, we saw the inspiring mass movement against the governor’s anti-labor legislation, which was eventually channeled into a failed recall effort. In reality, the battle against Scott Walker was lost last year. If labor had mobilized its full power then, beginning with the public sector and spreading it to the private sector, it could have spread the struggle nationally. Not only did the union tops not set a date and organize a statewide general strike back in February and March of 2011—which could have stopped the legislation in its tracks—they squandered the enormous momentum and pro-union sentiment that roused people across the country to support the cause of Wisconsin’s workers.

The labor leaders could have explained to all workers that if the Wisconsin public sector workers were defeated, they would be next! They could have explained that instead of accepting a “race to the bottom,” if we unite and fight together, we can not only defend union workers’ wages and benefits, but extend them to all workers. “Make the rich pay for the crisis!” is a message that would have resonated strongly with the working class majority, both public sector and private, union and nonunion. It took the Occupy movement to raise the “us vs. them” message of “we are the 99%.”

Instead, not only did the labor leaders allow the movement to be demobilized into the recall, but they accepted concessions. While opposing the “extreme” measures of Walker’s effective abolishment of public sector union rights, they accepted and even bent over backwards to offer givebacks. The message this approach sent was the following: “take back our hard-fought wages and benefits if you must, but let us keep our unions and our dues base.” How can the union leaders expect to inspire the broader working class to support their struggle if they give up the wages and benefits of their own workers without even putting up a fight?

Walker’s victory will be used as a battering ram against organized labor—as “proof” that Americans are shifting to the right, that “greedy” workers are indeed the cause of the crisis, and that the “majority” recognizes this “pragmatic” reality. More governors will be emboldened to attempt to ram through “Right to Work” legislation. The workers will be told that there is no alternative to austerity and concessions, and furthermore, that there is no point in expending so much energy protesting and collecting signatures, as nothing changes anyway.

Nothing could be further from the truth. By organizing and fighting back, labor can win! But fighting back is not enough: labor needs a winning strategy as well.  Unfortunately, the labor leaders’ approach made this outcome not only possible, but probable.

Instead of making excuses, labor must learn from this experience and avoid the same mistakes in the future. Richard Trumka and the rest of the leaders of the AFL-CIO and Change to Win can turn this situation around. The potential for independent labor politics and a labor party is enormous. Fully 50% of those polled in Wisconsin have said they have a negative view of both major parties. The lesson of Wisconsin is that labor can rely only on its own forces and resources to fight against the attacks of big business.

However, the most significant labor struggle of the last period was the battle of ILWU Local 21 in Longview, WA in their struggle with the grain shipping conglomerate EGT. This was an important struggle and victory with lessons for the entire labor movement and Occupy. The methods used by longshore workers in the struggle at Longview included: stopping the movement of goods; fighting back despite government repression; and mobilizing support from working people not in the unions.

Summed up, what we can learn from this struggle is this: we can fight back and win only on the basis of a class struggle approach to trade unionism. This means recognizing that the workers’ interests are diametrically opposed to the interests of the bosses and their state. This means standing up to the police and even the military, ignoring anti-worker laws and court orders, and above all, mobilizing the power of the entire working class to stop all work at the point of production.

In September 2011, ILWU members, supporters, and family members from across Washington state converged on Longview. They did not limit themselves to an informational picket, with numbers of picketers kept low and off company property to remain “within the law.” Instead, members physically blocked trains attempting to enter the terminal, climbed and tore down fences, and went into the terminal, where they confronted company security guards and scab workers. They also removed the “plugs” on several grain cars, dumping many tons of grain onto the tracks. The number of ILWU members who participated in the September disruption was high enough that the ports of Tacoma and Seattle were shut down for one day.

Even before the grain dumping incident, Democratic Washington state Governor Christine Gregoire had sent state police to Longview, to bolster the local police who were already present to “serve and protect” EGT’s property. The police presence increased after the Occupy movement on the West Coast mobilized for a “general strike” to shut down ports on November 2, which was sparked in part by the ILWU’s struggle at Longview. The support from the Occupy activists across the country emboldened the longshore workers to continue their struggle to defeat EGT’s union busting. Another round of partial port disruptions, again largely spurred by Occupy, this time explicitly in solidarity with Local 21, took place on December 12.

The “straw that broke the camel’s back’” came when the ILWU and Occupy began planning a land and water blockade to prevent the grain ship MV Full Sources from docking at Longview in early February. National Guard troops were sent to Longview, and President Obama authorized a group of armed Coast Guard ships to escort the ship into the terminal. This would have been the first use of the U.S. military as strike breakers since the PATCO strike in 1981. The ILWU and Occupy had already shown that they would not be intimidated by security guards, prison sentences, or police. EGT then agreed to resume talks with Local 21 and a contract was eventually agreed to, recognizing the ILWU’s jurisdiction over the new grain terminal.

The working class as a whole—and especially those organized in unions—has the ability to bring the gears of the economy to a halt. But this ability is only potential unless the working class is aware of this power, and has a leadership that is willing to mobilize the class to use it to defend and improve our wages, conditions, and right to a union. The Longview struggle showed what shutting down the flow of goods and profits at the point of production can accomplish—even if that requires breaking the law.

Anti-labor laws such as the Taft-Hartley Act, enacted during the Truman administration, make broad, concerted action extremely difficult if the letter of the law is followed. Among other anti-union provisions, Taft-Hartley outlaws solidarity strikes and strikes that threaten “national security.” The rank-and-file at Longview showed a truly inspiring tenacity and willingness to fight, despite the ILWU’s International leadership, which at several points tried to keep the struggle within “safe” and “legal” confines. But as the eventual victory showed, if we want to fight and win, workers must go beyond the narrow confines of “legality.” The methods used were a return to the best traditions of American labor’s militant history.

If striking workers build support within the rest of the labor movement, including workers and youth outside the unions (such as Occupy activists), they can fight back en masse and disregard the laws written in the favor of the bosses. If workers have the support of other unions, up to and including solidarity strikes and general strikes, then injunctions, criminal charges, and the victimization of union activists by the bosses after a strike ends can become a dead letter. Every law on the books is simply a reflection of the balance of forces between the classes at the time it was written. The living balance of those same forces will determine whether the bosses and their state can enforce those laws.

Despite the heroism of the Longview workers, so far there has been no major fightback that has captivated the popular imagination on a national scale like the 1997 UPS Teamsters strike. Nonetheless, the tide is turning. Many workers are no longer willing to just “wait and see” what happens. It is only the beginning of the beginning of the capitalist crisis, and by extension, of labor’s revival.  The class war is not an abstract concept. It is the reality of every day of our lives, both inside and outside of work. Every job lost, every factory or school shut down, every health care premium or productivity quota raised, is a salvo by the bosses against the workers in this war. A renewed explosion of the class struggle is therefore firmly on the agenda. While this will not be a linear process, we can be confident that a revival is coming. In the storm and stress of the historical period we have entered, the American workers will move to change their destinies. The unions will be shaken from top to bottom. By uniting union and non-union workers, the employed and the unemployed, and armed with class struggle methods, workers can not only fight, but win.

However, class struggle methods at the workplace and mobilizations in the streets are not enough. The American working class must now resolve the greatest contradiction it faces: the lack of a mass political party of its own. The U.S. is the only advanced capitalist country that lacks a traditional mass party of labor. Without such a party, we are fighting the bosses with one hand tied behind our backs.

Election 2012 and the need for a labor party

Barring another 2000-esque debacle, by the time of our National Congress, the election results will be in. Therefore, this section of the perspectives will focus on the broader question of our approach to electoral politics and to the 2012 elections in particular, and the need for a labor party. Once the winner in November is determined, we will discuss and vote at the Congress and add a short addendum at the end of this section.

We must not have an indifferent attitude to bourgeois elections, even though we understand that nothing fundamental will be resolved by them. With no other outlet through which to express their frustrations, millions of ordinary workers and youth turn to electoral politics, especially during a presidential election year. This will not be a smooth, straightforward process. We will see wild swings in the opinion polls, and moods that can shift dramatically all the way up to election day itself and beyond. This is an inevitable reflection of the general instability and polarization of society. We are no longer in a period of “normal” elections. Normal elections are simply not possible in abnormal times.

As we have explained above, the capitalists are in the business of making profits, not of creating jobs. Therefore, the only “solution” to the crisis they have is to squeeze the workers even further. But this has its limits. No matter which party wins the presidency, they cannot solve the fundamental problems confronting the working class. Through bitter experience, the capitalist “school of hard knocks” will burn the illusions in the two party system and in capitalism itself out of the minds of millions. This is already beginning.

The 2010 midterm elections were a first indication that the steam had gone out of the “Change We Can Believe In” energy of Obama’s 2008 campaign. Due to a lack of alternatives, the Republicans made a big comeback by default. However, it won’t necessarily be so straightforward in 2012. Mitt Romney is an open enemy of the working class and many workers and young people understandably do not want to see him in power. Many will hold their noses and vote for Obama as the “lesser evil.” We must consistently point out that the flip side of “lesser evil” politics is that eventually, the “greater evil” gets back in if we do not build a viable alternative. Either that, or we are stuck with the “lesser evil,” which is after all, still “evil.”

The off-year elections in 2011 offered another snapshot of the mood of the electorate a year before the presidential election. On specific issues that affect workers more broadly, there were some important victories. In “backwards” Mississippi, voters rejected an open assault on a woman’s right to choose or even to use birth control. In “racist” Arizona, the author of SB1070, the draconian anti-immigrant bill, was booted out of office by voters. And in “apathetic” Ohio, millions of workers flooded the polls to reject SB5, the governor’s vicious anti-union legislation. These were all the result of massive grassroots organizing campaigns on these issues. None of these results are decisive in and of themselves, but as a whole, they paint a picture of an electorate that is increasingly unwilling to “leave it to the professional politicians.”

The Democrats have left millions of former supporters cold. There is measurably less enthusiasm now than there was in 2008. A recent Gallup poll found that just one-third of voters under 29 are registered to vote and say they will definitely vote in November. The Democrats are working furiously behind the scenes and leaning on the union leadership in an effort to co-opt the Occupy movement. They even use the same language, calling on a vote for the Democrats as a way to “occupy Congress for the 99%.”

Despite everything, many people still have honest illusions in Obama, and we must have a patient, friendly approach to them. When discussing with these well-intentioned supporters, we can explain Obama’s real record: no Employee Free Choice Act; no universal health care or even a public option; tens of thousands of troops remain in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the war has expanded into Pakistan; Camp X-Ray in Guantanamo has not been closed; he has not “put on his comfortable shoes” and walked a single picket line in solidarity with striking workers; he has not ended the tax breaks for companies that offshore jobs. There has been no moratorium on home foreclosures, no progressive tax on the ultra wealthy; no repeal of the anti-labor Taft-Hartley Act, the minimum wage remains lower in real terms than in 1968, and on and on.

Here are a few things he has done: given massive bailouts to the banks and big insurance companies; approved free trade agreements with South Korea, Panama, and Colombia (the most dangerous country in the world for trade unionists); reversed decades of environmental protections by ending the EPA’s clean-air regulation powers; authorized the use of armed Coast Guard ships against the Longview, WA longshoremen in their struggle against scab labor. To top it all off, the Democrats are holding their national convention in a non-union hotel in North Carolina, a “Right to Work” state with the lowest unionization rate in the country.

We are still far from having an actual labor party or even serious campaigns by independent labor candidates backed by their unions, but it is clear the pressure in that direction is building. Since we launched the Campaign for a Mass Party of Labor (CMPL) nearly two years ago, we have seen important changes in the labor movement on this question. Our experience at the AFL-CIO youth summit and the Labor Notes conference confirms that there is widespread discontent with the Democrats and broad sympathy for the labor party idea among the union rank-and-file. But without a lead from the leadership, or at least from a few unions or locals, it remains too abstract for most people to sink their teeth into. This is the dead-end the labor leaders’ policy of class collaboration has led us to.

Nonetheless, it is becoming increasingly difficult for the labor leaders to get the rank-and-file to the polls. After calling Obama’s support for the Colombia free trade agreement “deeply disappointing and troubling,” AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka hinted at the pressure he is under: “The more these things happen, where workers’ interests are subjugated to other interests, it has a cumulative effect, making it harder for us to energize our members and get them out in the numbers necessary in the fall.”

Under this pressure, in the run up to the presidential primaries and caucuses, first the Firefighters, and then Richard Trumka declared their “independence” from blindly making contributions to the Democrats and Republicans. The AFL-CIO announced that it would instead form a super PAC in order to help elect “pro-worker” candidates. In practice, this was just a backdoor way to support the Democrats. But the fact that they had to find a backdoor, and could no longer directly and uncritically support them is significant.

Now, the AFL-CIO has officially endorsed Obama, much to the dismay of many of its members and even some leaders, who are not at all satisfied with this approach. The super PAC, “Workers’ Voice,” raised $3.7 million by the end of 2011. Millions more are sure to follow. We can use this as an opportunity to explain how these resources could be used instead to run independent labor candidates and to lay the foundations for a labor party based on the unions.

It seems that the union leaders’ only remaining excuse not to launch such a party is, “look at the other candidate!” They hope against hope that the “real” Obama will “do the right thing” if he is reelected. However, we have already seen the “real” Obama. He has clearly shown which class’s interests he defends.

From the standpoint of the ruling class, no matter who wins in 2012, they win and the working class majority loses. Obama has bent over backward to accommodate the rich, and they are even richer now than they were under Bush. As the “good cop” of the bosses’ parties, Obama has given a certain “left cover” to the Republican and Democrats’ anti-worker policies. Given that he is expected to raise a record $1 billion toward his reelection campaign, it is clear that a wing of the capitalists would be satisfied if he wins another term.

At this stage, it is impossible to predict with any reasonable precision who will win. An overly drawn-out analysis of all the possible outcomes will not help clarify our overall approach. Much can change between now and November, and there are sure to be many unexpected twists and turns to the campaign. Much will depend on international events and on the economy. We will continue to update our analysis as the campaign season continues. Our main task is to keep our finger on the pulse of the workers and youth, connect our ideas with the advanced layers, and win them to the ideas of revolutionary socialism and of a labor party.

Broadly speaking, however, how would Obama’s reelection affect our work? While there may be a renewed “honeymoon” period, the workers would not be as disoriented as they were in 2008, when the crisis rained down on them and expectations in Obama were high. It would mean four more years of “the school of the Democrats,” especially if the Democrats manage to regain control of Congress. Four more years of Obama carrying out austerity measures in the face of the deepening capitalist crisis would strengthen the mood for a labor party among the rank-and-file of the unions. It would provide us with many more opportunities to raise this idea and to build the Campaign for a Mass Party of Labor in the unions.

The “lesser evil” arguments would inevitably continue, but with Obama in power, the labor leaders would have much less wiggle room to support the Democrats in the 2014 and 2016 elections. As with the October 2, 2010 march on Washington, the labor leaders would be under pressure to mobilize against the cuts and austerity, even with the Democrats in power. This would further drive a wedge between the union leadership and the rank-and-file, and between the labor movement as a whole and the Democrats. If the mass wave of strikes that is sure to emerge at a certain stage breaks out on the Democrats’ watch, then the contradictions will pile up even faster.

And what if Romney and the Republicans win? How would this affect our work? A Romney victory would signal an open declaration of war on the unions and the broader working class. There would be an ideological offensive in the media presenting his victory as a shift to the right. A layer of activists would be temporarily demoralized. However, given the overconfidence of the ruling class, his policies could set off a wave of mass mobilizations along the lines of the struggle in Wisconsin.

Such a scenario would offer many possibilities for us to connect with people angry with the failure of the system and the lack of real alternatives. The union leaders would have no option but to put themselves at the head of such a movement, as the unions are the source of their positions and power. They would seek to control the movement, to keep it within “safe” limits, with the aim of guiding it back into the Democrats at a certain stage. The “lesser evil” arguments would continue, but with the recent disappointment in Obama fresh in people’s memory, and with his policies to blame for letting the Republicans back in, at least the advanced layers would be more open to our ideas and the CMPL.

And what about developments outside the two main parties? Despite the Obama hype and the anti-Bush “lesser evil” backlash, candidates to the left of the Democrats received a higher total and percentage of votes in 2008 than they did in 2004. Life teaches, and it is likely that many people will either abstain in 2012 or will cast a “protest vote” for a third party. With the advent of Occupy, one would expect the mood for a third-party alternative to be high. However, no particular “left-of-the-Democrats” candidate has captured the imagination or generated serious interest among workers and the Occupy movement. The Greens, the Socialist Party, Rocky Anderson of the Justice Party, and the various small sects fielding candidates all lack a serious base and resources. This is why we emphasize that only the unions, with their millions of members and tremendous resources, can mount a serious challenge to the bosses’ parties.

In 2000, we gave critical support to Ralph Nader’s campaign, as the Labor Party did not run candidates, and as there were several “Labor for Nader” formations we hoped to connect with. In 2004, we endorsed no candidate in particular, and instead focused our energy and resources on explaining the need for a labor party. In 2008, given the widespread illusions in Obama and the need to provide something more concrete under those conditions, we gave critical support to Cynthia McKinney’s campaign. While fomenting no illusions in her campaign, we emphasized the need for a labor party as the only real solution. We explained that from our perspective, a vote for McKinney was a protest vote against the major capitalist parties; a vote in favor of a labor party; for universal health care and education; and against the wars.

This year there is a different dynamic. The Democrats are in power, and there is tremendous disillusionment with Obama, but there is also a vicious Republican wolf knocking at the door. The existence of the CMPL also changes our approach. We now have very clear guidelines as to what kind of candidate we would support, and this should make it easier for us to explain our position to our comrades and contacts and also to determine who to support—or not—and why.

Generally speaking, we would only support candidates who make the need for a labor party a central plank of their campaign. Or who, at the very least, are running independently of, and against the Democrats; preferably a union member or leader with real union resources and support. In other words: not just pro-labor independent candidates; not just anti-cuts independent candidates; not just socialist independent candidates; but independent candidates with real ties to labor, offering us an opportunity to concretely and clearly raise the need for a labor party. For example, if someone like Dan Coffman, the leader of ILWU Local 21's struggle at Longview, had run for president with his union's backing, on a program of repealing Taft-Hartley, creating millions of jobs, defending Social Security, for universal free healthcare, etc., this would have presented us with a different dynamic. As always, we will discuss concretely and decide whether or not to support any given candidate on a case-by-case basis.

We encourage comrades and our periphery to register and exercise their right to vote. We propose that comrades write-in “labor party” for president, as a way of emphasizing the need for labor candidates and a labor party. When discussing with our contacts and periphery, we can explain that in the absence of a labor party or independent labor candidates, there are many independent left and socialist candidates that people can choose from if they want to cast a “protest” vote for other offices. While we have no illusions these people can win, a vote for them would send a message that we want a labor party, and are in favor of jobs, universal health care, and education. We must explain that ultimately, these protest votes will not truly challenge the corporate parties and their stranglehold on politics and the economy. Only the power of organized labor can do this.

We must also combat the pressures of lesser-evilism. We need to explain that, as Eugene Debs put it, it is better to vote for something you want and not get it, than vote for something you do not want, and get it. We must explain how a labor party could actually offer a real choice, and that we do not want a 3rd party—we want a 1st party!

Some on our periphery will not be satisfied with this approach. They will insist we endorse this or that candidate. But the ones and twos we are looking to win to the WIL and the CMPL will understand and appreciate this sober analysis, which offers genuine possibilities for the future, not a “get rich quick scheme.” We must not relent to the pressure to endorse this or that candidate simply because the rest of the left is doing so. We are charting our own path. The “left” is not what matters; what matters is the working class as a whole, and at this stage, its advanced layers.

We must therefore maintain a sense of proportion and remember that whether or not we endorse candidates this electoral cycle, our small forces cannot have a real impact on the elections. Our aim is to build a bridge between people’s heightened political consciousness during an election year, and the need for a labor party and for socialism. As in any other field of work, we must identify, prioritize, and maximize opportunities to strengthen and build our own organization. This is the only way we will be in a position to actually have an influence on events in the future.

Build the WIL!

To those who view the world as something static and unchanging, things certainly look grim: the economy is in a shambles, the unions are under attack, and we do not yet have a mass labor party. However, if we approach the situation from a Marxist perspective, the processes we have examined in this document should fill us with tremendous optimism for the future. Our task as Marxists is to look beyond the surface of society and events, to draw out the broader trends, contradictions, and underlying processes. We must not miss the forest for the trees! We are above all concerned with the effect events have on the consciousness of the workers and the youth. How can the crisis of capitalism and the failure of the current labor leaders to provide a way out not deeply shake up people’s outlook?

Collectively working out the long-, medium-, and short-term perspectives is an important part of our work as an organization. As Trotsky expressed it, our theory and perspectives give us the benefit of foresight over astonishment. Instead of reacting to, and being taken by surprise by events, we can anticipate them in order to intervene in them more effectively.

Our political perspectives are not a blueprint set in stone for all time. They must be updated regularly on the basis of changing events and conditions. They represent a working hypothesis that help orient our comrades in the work that needs to be done in the period immediately ahead, while ensuring we also keep the big picture in mind at all times. It is not about being 100% right about this or that detail for the sake of being right. The only people who do not make mistakes are those that do nothing.

As we explained in our 2010 perspectives document: “We must not fall into routinism or adopt a superficial approach when it comes to our analysis or the way we intervene in the movement. Now, more than ever, we must regularly discuss and adjust our perspectives and work as events unfold. The clarity we achieve through discussion on the basis of practical experience will more than make up for our errors, as long as we recognize, learn from, and correct them them.”

We must not be swayed by the temporary and volatile moods of those around us, of our co-workers, family members, contacts, and periphery. There are more than a few people who consider themselves on the left who one day proclaim that the revolution is right around the corner, and the next day deny the possibility of revolution altogether. This is what happens when you are not trained in the Marxist method, and do not have long-term perspectives to help guide you through the chaos of life under capitalism. This is what happens when you do not have a burning confidence in the power of the working class to change society. But through patient explanation, we can bring clarity to the issues that arise and win many more people to our ideas.

Capitalism is in a long-term crisis and there is no immediate way for it to recover. It can only recover by further driving down the living conditions of the workers. There is no end in sight for the budget deficits. There is no end in sight for the austerity. This is a finished recipe for a revival of the class struggle on a scale we have not seen in decades. We must prepare politically, organizationally, and psychologically for this. The next 10 years of building our organization will be nothing like the first 10 years. We must be prepared for what is to come.

On the eve of World War II, in the early days of the Fourth International, Leon Trotsky wrote the following: “[The Fourth International] exists and it fights. It is weak? Yes, its ranks are not numerous because it is still young. They are as yet chiefly cadres. But these cadres are pledges for the future. Outside these cadres there does not exist a single revolutionary current on this planet really meriting the name. If our international be still weak in numbers, it is strong in doctrine, program, tradition, in the incomparable tempering of its cadres. Who does not perceive this today, let him in the meantime stand aside. Tomorrow it will become more evident.”

These words are even more relevant to the Workers International League at the present time. The revolutionary party is above all its program, perspectives, ideas, methods, and traditions. Over the last ten years, we have painstakingly established the initial foundations of the WIL. We now stand on the eve of momentous, world-historic events. It is truly only the beginning of the beginning. The objective conditions provide immeasurable potential for us to take the organization to the next level. As Hegel would say, we must now make the potential, actual. Forward to building the WIL!

[End]