A-Infos (en) anarkismo.net: Should the Left Call for a Third Party? by Wayne Price

Electoralism or independent mass action? ---- There are non-anarchist radicals who 
advocate creating a new, third, party, to replace the Democrats at least. They share many 
of the values of anarchists. However anarchists regard this as a mistaken strategy. ---- 
There are a number of radicals who reject the "two-party system". These are socialists (of 
various sorts) and left-liberals who do not accept the anarchist goal of abolition of the 
state as well as capitalism. But the Leftists I am writing about agree with anarchists 
that it is a mistake to support the Democratic Party and its politicians and its 
organization (the modern Republican Party is not an attraction for Leftists). They agree 
that the Democrats, like the Republicans, are agents of the big business owners; that the 
Democrats support capitalism as a system; that they support the imperialism and war-making 
of the national state as it is; that, while the Democrats play lip service to the danger 
of climate change, they actually support policies which will lead to ecological 
catastrophe; that in practice they are actually supporters of racism, sexism, and other 
forms of oppression. (I am not going to argue for these controversial propositions, at 
this time.) Such radicals and left-liberals are aware that the Democrats serve to draw in 
popular movements, co-opt their leaders, and kill off their militancy. Therefore these 
militants do not organize for votes for any Democrat, even in the very unusual situation 
when a Democrat calls himself a "democratic socialist." Instead they seek to build a new, 
third, party to run in elections.

I am not discussing what individuals may do on election day, as individuals without a 
movement. Whether one person votes or doesn't, and for whom, does not really have much 
effect (if the individual is allowed to vote, and even if that vote is counted). I am not 
discussing how individuals should react to the vile Donald Trump in this specific 
election. What matters is what radicals advocate to be done by large numbers of people: 
the unions, the African-American community, organized feminists, the environmental 
movement, the LGBT community, immigrant associations, and so on. These groupings (which 
are the base of the Democratic Party) are potentially very powerful, if they would act 
together.

Rejecting the two-party-system, anarchists instead propose non-electoral mass action. 
Anarchists advocate union organizing, community organizing, strikes, marches, 
demonstrations, nonviolent civil disobedience, "riots" (rebellions), military mutinies, 
and a general strike. They call for sit-ins and occupations of factories, of other 
workplaces, schools and universities, city centers, and transportation hubs. It was just 
such militant methods which won union rights and public benefits in the ‘thirties, which 
overthrew legal racial segregation in the ‘sixties and won certain other gains for 
African-Americans. Such methods were used to oppose the Vietnamese war in the ‘sixties and 
‘seventies. The modern LGBT movement began with the Christopher Street "riot" and was 
advanced by ACT-UP's civil disobedience, among other events. Gains for women were won in 
the context of these upheavals and mass radicalization.

However, the non-anarchists, while not necessarily against direct actions, focus on 
building a new popular political party. Some of them, often from a Trotskyist background, 
see this as a proposal for a Labor Party based on the unions, as in Britain and Australia. 
Others are for a vaguer "Workers' Party" or something similar. Some raise both. For 
example, the slogans "Fight for a Labor Party!" and "For a Mass Party of Labor!" appear in 
a pamphlet distributed by the (Trotskyist) Workers International League. (Woods 2011) 
Others just focus on building some sort of general new party-class-content not specified. 
Michelle Alexander (who has led in exposing the attack on African-Americans through mass 
incarceration) wrote, "I am inclined to believe that it would be easier to build a new 
party than to save the Democratic Party from itself." (Alexander 2016)

Past Efforts

In any case, it is accepted that the new party would not be a revolutionary party, at 
least at first, if ever. Many-perhaps most-working people hold views to the left of the 
conventional party politics. They are for taxing the very rich, fair trade between 
countries, guaranteed jobs, free community colleges, equal pay for women, prevention of 
climate change, and other causes. But the people do not (yet) see this as implying a 
social revolution. If a new party runs, not just to make progressive propaganda, but to 
get elected, it cannot advocate revolution-that is, it cannot tell the truth about what is 
really needed to save the world.

Back in 1968, some militants tried to create "a broad third-party movement of the left." 
(Draper 1972; 118) This was the attempt to build a national Peace and Freedom Party. Its 
rationale was explained by a leading advocate (another sort of Trotskyist): "The 
‘revolution' that is on the agenda for Peace and Freedom today is not yet overthrowing the 
whole System, but something a little more modest for the day: viz. overthrowing the 
two-party system...." (132) This effort failed.

In 1972, over 8,000 African-American militants went to Gary IN for a "Black Political 
Convention." They seriously discussed forming an independent Black party. But this was 
defeated by the Rev. Jesse Jackson and other establishment-oriented Black leaders.

An attempt to build a movement for a labor party began in 1991. The Labor Party Advocates 
was supported by a number of relatively left union officials, who were dissatisfied with 
the Democrats-and by members of various socialist organizations. At one point it even 
tried to declare itself a real "Labor Party." But the union officials just wanted to 
pressure the Democratic politicians on whom they relied, not to actually break with them. 
And so the organization failed.

Since then there have been other attempts to build a new party (one effort calling itself 
the New Party). Many U.S. radicals were inspired by the election in Greece of the Syriza 
Party and the growth in Spain of Podemas (although the recent failures of Syriza may have 
had a negative impact). In November 2013, Kshama Sawant of the Socialist Alternative 
(Trotskyists) was elected to the Seattle City Council, with support from unionized 
workers. Sawant and her group have campaigned for some sort of independent party of the 
left. The group around The North Star website, led by Louis Proyect (and initiated by the 
late Peter Camejo) has also been advocating independent political action-a new party of 
the left.

In May 2015, there was a conference, "The Future of Left/Independent Electoral Actoin in 
the United States." It was attended by members of Socialist Alternative, Solidarity 
(Trotskyist), the International Socialist Organization (ditto), The North Star, the 
radical wing of the Green Party (such as Howie Hawkins), the Peace and Freedom Party 
(California), the Vermont Progressive Party, and others. About 200 attended. No solid 
organization came out of it.

In New York State, unions and others back what is called the Working Families Party. 
Unlike other states, New York permits cross-endorsements, so that the WFP can get enough 
votes to keep its ballot line by endorsing Democrats. In the last election it endorsed 
Governor Andrew Cuomo for re-election, despite his terrible record. The WFP probably 
should not be regarded as part of the third party movement.

At this time, the most successful "new party" is the Green Party. While its platform holds 
many good points, it is not actually anti-capitalist. For example, its platform says, "We 
must change the legal design of corporations so that they generate profits, but not at the 
expense of the environment...We must compel[corporations]to serve human and environmental 
needs..." (Green National Committee 2014; IV Economic Justice and Sustainability) So, in 
their green society there would continue to be profit-seeking corporations competing on 
the market, but they would be better regulated. This is a liberal image of an improved 
capitalism.

The Green Party has run several presidential campaigns, the most notable being when they 
endorsed Ralph Nader (including 2000, when he was accused of costing Al Gore the 
election). They have run gubernatorial campaigns. (Recently they got five percent of the 
vote in New York State against Gov. Cuomo, who was so bad that even the teachers' union 
could not endorse him-while the Republican, safely, had no chance of winning). The Greens' 
membership includes liberals (Roseanne Barr offered to run as their presidential 
candidate), Trotskyist socialists, people with "Green" politics (whatever that means to 
them), and others. In the New York gubernatorial campaign, their candidate was Howie 
Hawkins, who used to be associated with the anarchist Murray Bookchin. Their candidate for 
lieutenant governor was Brian Jones, of the ISO.

The Greens and other such parties have also won seats on local city councils. For example, 
in Richmond CA, the Richmond Progressive Alliance (which includes Greens) has won 
elections for Mayor and City Council. In the U.S. "federal" system, local government is 
the most democratic and the easiest to get elected to. It also has the least power.

However, the movement for a viable, left, third party was torn by Bernie Sanders' 
presidential campaign. Sanders calls himself a "democratic socialist," even though he does 
not actually advocate socialism. He does not propose expropriating any capitalists or 
creating a cooperative, democratically-planned, economy; his model is the capitalist 
welfare-state of Denmark. He has a liberal program, if one to the left of other 
politicians. And he ran within the Democratic Party. It was doubtful that he would be 
allowed to win the nomination, let alone the election. If elected, it was impossible that 
he could carry out his program-let alone socialism. But it is significant that he had 
drawn a large and excited following, especially among young people and working people.

The Left groups which usually get involved in the Democratic Party, such as the Democratic 
Socialists of America hadthrown themselves into the Sanders' campaign. (After some 
vacillation, the Communist Party supported Hillary Clinton, probably because of her 
support among African-Americans.) But many who might otherwise support a third party were 
also arguing for Bernie. Many of the Greens' members were attracted to Bernie. Certainly 
it had become impossible to build much of an independent political organization so long as 
Sanders appeared to be showing that it was possible to run inside the Democrats. Whatever 
Sanders was thinking personally, the effect of his campaign (like that of Eugene McCarthy, 
George McGovern, Jesse Jackson, or Dennis Kucinich before him) was to draw potential 
opposition forces into the establishment Democratic Party. Some of his present supporters 
have become disillusioned by the whole process. Rather than being burned out (so to say) 
they may become revolutionaries.

Leaving the Sanderistas alone for now, let me focus on those who still want to build a 
third party of the left-if not now, then as soon as possible.

Trying to Build a Third Party is Impractical

First I will consider the most immediately practical issue. It would be very difficult to 
build a new party. Building an electoral machine and running in elections costs a great 
deal of money, as everyone knows. By definition, the capitalists have much more of it than 
the rest of the population. Sanders has been able to draw on lots of small donations-but 
he is running inside a major party, in a one-shot-deal (that is, he is not trying to 
create an on-going mass organization). He still has much less than Ms. Clinton, let alone 
his Republican rivals, if we count PACs and Super-PACs, which he has rejected (the rich 
would not donate to him anyway).

It also requires a lot of people, especially for maintaining an on-going organization. The 
working class and other oppressed people do have lots of people (much more than the 
"one-percent"). But the Democrats and Republicans start at least with fully staffed 
organizations while new parties must start from scratch.

It has been possible to start new parties in Europe and elsewhere for reasons which do not 
apply in the U.S. Other countries have proportional representation, so that a minority 
party which gets five percent of the vote gets five percent of parliamentary seats. Or 
they have second round voting: people may vote for their preferred minority party, without 
feeling that they are "wasting their vote." There will be a second round of votes, with 
only the largest two or three parties competing. Only a few places in the U.S. have 
second-round voting. There are other advantages which non-U.S. parties have and U.S. 
citizens do not.

The U.S. has a bizarre political system, especially given its boast of "democracy." This 
makes it almost impossible for a new party to do more than to win an election here and 
there-if it wants to actually take over the whole government democratically.

Just at the national level, elections to the House of Representatives are grossly 
distorted by gerrymandering (also known as "incumbent protection"). The Senate has two 
senators from each state, no matter their size (so that Rhode Island and California each 
have two senators), elected for six year terms. The presidency is elected through the 
infamous Electoral College; all the electors of each state go to the majority candidate, 
no matter how large the minority vote (so that Democrats in Texas or Republicans in New 
York may as well stay home on election day). Judges at the national level are appointed, 
not elected-for life. This does not count the local levels with their corruption, legal 
distortion, gerrymandering, and voter suppression. This is before looking at the effects 
of money (legal and illegal), advertising, manipulation of the media, racist laws, and so on.

The "founding fathers" of the U.S. knew exactly what they were doing (even if they did not 
predict the rise of parties). They did not want the "mob" to rule ("democracy" as they saw 
it). This would threaten their property. The people might break up big landed estates or 
create cheap money so they could pay off their creditors. But the founders did not want 
one-person rule either: a new king, or a dictator such as Oliver Cromwell. They wanted a 
"republic" where their class could maintain its wealth-a government which would settle 
disputes within the ruling class, make decisions, and keep the "mob" in its place. Despite 
changes, the system has continued to do that up to this day.

Supporters of new parties argue that some previous third parties made significant impacts. 
They refer to the Peoples or Populist Party and Debs' and Thomas' Socialist Party. This 
claim has truth to it, but these parties did not establish themselves nor change the 
system. The one time when a new party was successful was the one time when the system came 
apart. Lincoln's Republican Party did destroy the Whig Party and temporarily split the 
Democrats, in the process of getting elected. But the country was then in turmoil over 
slavery, sections of the ruling class (slaveowners and capitalists) could not find 
agreement, and a civil war was around the corner. Similar upheavals may yet occur in the 
modern U.S., but they have not yet.

This makes a successful new party unlikely in the near future. Is this how the U.S. Left 
should spend its limited human and financial resources?

A Classless (Capitalist) New Party?

As can be seen, many of those advocating a new or third party are not concerned with its 
class composition or class program. Like the Green Party, they may propose major 
improvements in the environment; worker rights; anti-racist, anti-sexist, and 
anti-homophobic policies; and general improvements in society. But they do not propose to 
change the economy from one owned mostly by what Sanders has called "the billionaire 
class," to one collectively owned and democratically managed by the working class and 
oppressed. Their program is left-liberal, but not anti-capitalist.

Similarly, such third party advocates want to attract people of all classes, from 
farmworkers to dentists and, if possible, "progressive" businesspeople. Of course, they 
would like the support of working people (non-supervisory workers and their families make 
up 80 % or so of the population, after all). Similarly they are for unions, but not as the 
single biggest (even now), most potentially powerful, organization of the working class. 
They have no special approach to workers as workers and no special hostility to 
capitalists as capitalists.

In brief, what this trend proposes is a third-capitalist-party. But the U.S. already has 
two capitalist parties and does not need a new one. Nor are progressive people likely to 
put money and effort into creating another capitalist party, when they can work within one 
of the existing ones. Despite its initiators' best intentions, such a third party would be 
under the immense pressure of the capitalist system to maintain that system. Once 
committed to maintaining this system (or at least, to not changing the system), it will be 
unable to resist the logic of the beast. I assume the supporters of this classless 
approach do not believe that capitalism is a central cause of climate change, economic 
crises, wars, and oppression. They are wrong. Without getting rid of capitalism, we cannot 
get rid of these terrible evils.

A "Workers' Party"?

The original motivation of Marxists was not to build a new, third, capitalist party. Quite 
the opposite: it was to break the workers away from the capitalist parties (such as the 
British Liberal Party, in Marx's day). It was to enhance working class self-organization 
and self-assertion against all capitalist parties. Marx wrote,
"Even when there is no prospect whatsoever of their being elected, the workers must put up 
their own candidates in order to preserve their independence...." (quoted by D'Amato 2000) 
And Engels declared, "In a country that has newly entered the movement, the first really 
crucial step is the formation by the workers of an independent political party, no matter 
how, so long as it is distinguishable as a labor party." (quoted by D'Amato 2000)

This was the one major practical dispute between Marx and the anarchists in the First 
International. Marx wanted every local group of the International to foster independent 
electoral action. The anarchists were opposed. Marxists, then as now, accused the 
anarchists of being "political indifferentists" and "anti-political." The truth was that 
they were only anti-electoral. They were not against mass strikes and demonstrations which 
pressured the state. They were against spreading false confidence that workers could make 
real gains through getting elected to the government.

By now the historical "experiment" of forming workers' electoral parties is over. The 
Labor parties, Social Democratic parties, Communist parties, and Green parties have all 
had their day in Europe and elsewhere, with little to show for their elections. It seems 
peculiar to advocate a U.S. Labor party, given the reactionary, pro-imperialist, history 
of the British and Australian Labour parties. Most recently, there are the disastrous 
examples of the socialist parties elected in Venezuela (Chavez' Bolivarians), in Brazil 
(Lula's Workers Party), and most recently in Greece (Syriza, a real failure).

Sticking to Marx's class approach should lead to socialists rejecting votes for Democrats 
but also for third-capitalist parties, such as the Green party. Unfortunately, there is 
likely to be little real difference between a third capitalist party and a new"labor" party.

In a time of crisis, when masses of people are angry, radicalizing, and rebellious, the 
"leaders" of the workers will try to run around to get in front of them, in order to lead 
them into safe and respectable activities (such as going to the election booths every few 
years). The left wing of the union bureaucrats will split away from the Democrats, and so 
will the liberal politicians, the preachers, the pundits, and the middle class 
"leadership" of all the movements (women, environment, African-American, etc.). They may 
call their new party a "workers" party or a "labor party," but they may just as well call 
it a "green" party or a "citizens" party.

Advocates of a "labor party" admit, "...The assumption must be, given the political level 
of the American working class, that...such a labor party would be launched under 
thoroughly reformist leadership and program, with revolutionary socialists acting as a 
critical left wing at best....If American labor formed its own party...then there can be 
little doubt that the candidates it would run...would be as individuals not much 
politically different from liberal Democrats today. The difference would not be in the man 
but in the movement." (Draper 1972; 124-125)

But I am arguing that a "movement" for an electoral labor party would not, in practice, be 
much different from a movement for a new capitalist party-no more than the "man" would be 
different from other, reformist, men and women. If it showed any signs of vitality it 
would immediately attract all sorts of liberal mouthpieces, professional bureaucrats, and 
leftist charlatans, right along with the union officials, all comprising that "thoroughly 
reformist leadership."

In the coming time of crisis and rebellion, revolutionary anarchists do not want to let 
the politicians mislead the workers and others into conventional politics. Anarchists will 
do their best to prevent the limitations of the movements by electoral parties-to inspire 
popular militancy.

Revolution or Reform

If there is one thing on which Lenin and Trotsky agreed with the anarchists, it was that 
the existing (bourgeois) state could not be used to make fundamental changes-that it would 
have to be overthrown, smashed, dismantled, and replaced by alternate institutions. (Lenin 
and Trotsky advocated a new, "workers' state," while anarchists are for federations of 
popular councils and associations.) Lenin would quote Marx's conclusion from the 1871 
Paris Commune rebellion, "The working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state 
machinery and wield it for its own purposes"-a statement which Marx and Engels were to 
attach to their next introduction to the Communist Manifesto. (Marx 1992; 206) Unlike 
anarchists, Lenin and Trotsky were for running in elections as platforms for revolutionary 
propaganda. But they denied that it was possible to use elections to take over these 
states. So they said, many times.

Yet here we have all these Leninists, Trotskyists, and other Marxists who want parties to 
run in elections without saying that a revolution is necessary. Presumably some of them do 
not believe that such electoral action can lead to laying hold of the ready-made state 
machinery and wielding it for the purposes of the working class. Yet they do not say so 
nor fight to include such ideas in the party's platform. Other socialists and Greens 
probably believe that the "ready-made state machinery" can be used for the good of 
all-that is, they are sincere reformists. But what are the supposedly revolutionary 
socialists doing? Are they deliberately lying to the voters?

To repeat: however democratic it appears, the U.S. government was designed so that the 
working people could not take it over. In any case, the ruling capitalist class is not so 
attached to democracy as to let the U.S. population vote in a government which would take 
away its wealth and power, its factories, offices, banks, mansions, private jets, islands, 
and politicians. Faced with such a threat, the capitalists will resist tooth and claw, to 
the bitter end. (As the Southern slaveowners did when Lincoln was elected.) They will whip 
up race hatred, organize fascist private bands, cancel elections, organize a military 
coup, or do whatever it takes to "save civilization," as they see it. They must be 
disarmed and removed from power. The workers and oppressed are the big majority of the 
population, with their hands on the means of production, transportation, distribution, and 
communication. The ranks of the military are the daughters and sons of the working class 
who will not fire on their families if approached by the people. A revolution might be 
fairly nonviolent, if the working people are united, courageous, and self-organized. And 
if they do not let down their guard by holding illusions in elections.

Right now almost no one, beyond a marginal few, is for a revolution (of any kind). Most 
people know that something is wrong with this system but have no idea what to do about it. 
Yet more people can see the possibility of a general strike in a major city than they can 
see any hope of organizing an alternative to the Democratic Party. And one such mass 
strike, shutting down a city, would shake up the political consciousness of millions. The 
whole of U.S. politics is organized so that ordinary people, the workers of every 
category, do not realize what a terrific power they have if they would use it. Even now, 
people can see the use of militant mass actions, if radicals were organized to raise such 
ideas. This talk about forming new electoral parties is a diversion, something which takes 
us away from really fighting the power.

In brief, an attempt to build a new national party would be extremely difficult, would be 
reformist in its program, would be another capitalist party, and would serve as a barrier 
to independent mass movement. Independent mass actions and struggles are what anarchists 
advocate, to build a movement which might culminate in a popular revolution.

References

Alexander, MIchelle (2016). "Why Hillary Clinton Doesn't Deserve the Black Vote." The 
Nation. http://www.thenation.com/article/hillary-clinton-does-not-deserve-black-peoples-votes/

D'Amato, Paul (2000). "Marxists and Elections." International Socialist Review. Issue 13, 
August-September 2000. http://www.isreview.org/issues/13marxists_elections.shtml

Draper, Hal (1972). "The Road Forward for the California Peace and Freedom Party." The New 
Left of the Sixties (ed. Michael Friedman). Berkeley CA: Independent Socialist Press. Pp. 
118-138.

Green National Committee (2014). Platform. 
http://www.gp.org/economic_justice_and_sustainability/#ejCurbing
Marx, Karl (1992). "The Civil War in France." The First International and After: Political 
Writings: Vol. 3 (ed. D. Fernbach). London: Penguin. Pp. 187-236.

Woods, Alan (2011). An Introduction to Marxism and Anarchism. London: Welred Books.

*previously written for the Anarcho-Syndicalist Review

http://www.anarkismo.net/article/29595
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S  N E W S  S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Subscribe/Unsubscribe http://lists.ainfos.ca/mailman/listinfo/a-infos-en
Archive: http://ainfos.ca/en