Among the many questions taken up was the approach communists should take to the possibilities of building a labor party - a political party based on the trade unions -in the United States. The previous few years had seen the explosive rise of the labor movement and formation of the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO). With this came the beginnings of a movement for working-class political action independent of the capitalist Democratic and Republican parties. The excerpt below is from Trotsky's remarks at a July 23, 1938, meeting on that subject.

The book is copyright 1977 by Pathfinder Press, reprinted by permission. Subheadings are by the Militant.

Of course the question of the labor party cannot be considered independent from the general development in the next period. If a new prosperity comes for some time and postpones the question of a labor party, then the question will for some time become more or less academic; but we will continue to prepare the party in order not to lose time when the question again becomes acute. But such a tremendous prosperity is not very probable now, and if the economic situation remains as now, then the party can change in a short time.

The most important fact we must underline is the total difference in America in comparison with a working class from Europe. In Europe - let us say in Germany before Hitler, in Austria, France now, Great Britain - the question of a party for the workers was looked upon as a necessity; it was a commonplace for the vanguard of the working class and for a large stratum of the masses themselves.

In the United States the situation is absolutely different. In France, political agitation consists of the attempts of the CP [Communist Party] to win the workers, of the SP [Socialist Party] to win the workers, and every conscious or semiconscious worker stands before a choice. Should he adhere to the SP or the CP or Radical Socialist Party? For the Radical Socialist Party it is not such a problem, since that is mostly for the foremen, but the workers have to choose between the SP and the CP.

The first step in political education
In the United States the situation is that the working class needs a party - its own party. It is the first step in political education. We can say that this first step was due five or ten years ago. Yes, theoretically that is so, but insofar as the workers were more or less satisfied by the trade union machinery, and even lived without this machinery, the propaganda in favor of a working class party was more or less theoretical, abstract, and coincided with the propaganda of certain centrist and communist groups, and so on.

Now the situation has changed. It is an objective fact in the sense that the new trade unions created by the workers came to an impasse - a blind alley - and the only way for workers already organized in trade unions is to join their forces in order to influence legislation, to influence the class struggle. The working class stands before an alternative. Either the trade unions will be dissolved or they will join for political action. That is the objective situation, not created by us, and in this sense the agitation for a working class party becomes now not an abstract but a totally concrete step in progress for the workers organized in the trade unions in the first instance and for those not organized at all.

Revolutionists can't be sectarian
In the second place it is an absolutely concrete task determined by economic and social conditions. It would be absurd for us to say that because the new party issues from the political amalgamation of the trade unions it will of necessity be opportunistic. We will not invite the workers to make this same step in the same way as abroad. Of course if we had any real choice between a reformist party or a revolutionary party, we would say this is your address (meaning the revolutionary party). But a party is absolutely necessary. It is the only road for us in this situation. To say that we will fight against opportunism, as of course we will fight today and tomorrow, especially if the working class party had been organized, by blocking a progressive step which can produce opportunism, is a very reactionary policy, and sectarianism is often reactionary because it opposes the necessary action of the working class.

We can imagine in schematic form three types of labor party in the United States in the next period...

If the party is loose enough to accept us, it would be stupidity not to enter. If we enter with the possibility of working in it as a party, then the labor party is a loose opportunistic party. The fact that such a party accepts us itself signifies that the opportunists are not strong enough to eliminate us. It signifies good conditions of a sort. (I consider now that we enter as a party - that conditions become so critical that a labor party is formed, and that we, the Socialist Workers Party, enter as a section. This would be an extremely favorable situation.)

Then it can be a labor party created in a less critical period, in less turmoil, in rather calm conditions, quiet conditions, with the predominance of the conservative reactionary leaders, with a more or less centralized machine which will keep us out as a party. Then, of course, we continue existing as a party outside such an opportunistic party, and we consider only the possibility of penetrating such a labor party - but as a party we remain outside such a centralized, opportunistic party.

If in the labor party we become the predominant tendency, a revolutionary tendency with the leaders our leaders, the ideas our ideas, etc., then we become the advocates of centralizing this loose party. We demand that the workers eliminate the fakers, etc. It is the third type, the last stage of evolution, the stage in which our party dissolves in this labor party in such a manner that it determines the character of the labor party. In the first step we say: "Workers, you need your own party."  
 
 
Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home