Edith Fischer’s February 10 letter “‘Labor Party’ is a Centrist Fudge” argues that a labor party “rooted in the leadership and structures of the trade unions” is necessarily of the form that currently exists in e.g. Britain and Australia, and would thus not be a step forward–rather that we should only advocate for a party with a full socialist minimum-maximum program. Fischer is right to find flaw with the Freedom Socialist article responded to–which does indeed substitute a labor party for a socialist party,^[1] but wrong to reject the call for a labor party itself–especially on the grounds of Trotskyist political history. Indeed, Trotsky and the US Trotskyist movement initially dismissed the call for a labor party–not least because of the disastrous experience with the cross-class “Farmer-Labor Party” formation–culminating in LaFollete’s FLP turning on communists in 1924. However, even Trotsky’s 1932 dismissal of the call for a labor party recognized both a sort of “inner logic” of the class struggle at that time that created an impetus towards it, and recognized that the creation of one would be a step forward.^[2]

In subsequent years the logic Trotsky anticipated in 1932 played out–through the tumultuous industrial labor struggles of the 1930s, and through their suppression by Democratic Party politicians, the need for a party to represent the workers became widely felt–and union leaders such as John L. Lewis saw the value in threatening a split from the Democrats through avenues such as Labor's Non-Partisan League. In the face of such an opportunity, the old refrain of “we would never call for a reformist party” became increasingly hollow. In discussions leading to the preparation of the Transitional Program, US Trotskyists visiting “the old man” in Mexico were convinced by him that a more sophisticated appreciation of the call for a labor party was necessary.^[3]

At the time, he argued: “I believe that our policy need not be theoretically revised but it needs to be concretized. In what sense? Are we in favor of the creation of a reformist labor party? No. Are we in favor of a policy which can give to the trade unions the possibility to put its weight upon the balance of the forces? Yes. It can become a reformist party–it depends upon the development.”

He went on: “It would be absurd to say that we advocate a reformist party. We can say to the leaders of the LNPL: ‘You’re making of this movement a purely opportunistic appendage to the Democrats.’ It’s a question of a pedagogical approach. How can we say that we advocate the creation of a reformist party? We say, you cannot impose your will through a reformist party but only through a revolutionary party… I will not say that the labor party is a revolutionary party, but that we will do everything to make it possible. At every meeting I will say: I am a representative of the SWP. I consider it the only revolutionary party. But I am not a sectarian. You are trying now to create a big workers’ party. I will help you but I propose that you consider a program for this party. I make such and such propositions. I begin with this. Under these conditions it would be a big step forward. Why not say openly what is?”

His argument, which it took some time for the leaders of the American SWP to grasp, was that one does not begin only from what they wish the political landscape looked like, and advocate directly for that–but rather that it was necessary to engage with the political landscape as it exists, and to drive forward a process that may arrive at the desired destination, albeit by a winding road. The movement for a labor party provided an opportunity to begin to develop an independent political consciousness of the working class, and further, provided an arena in which to argue for how that consciousness should develop–i.e. to advance the socialist program. Rather than conceding in advance that a party based on the trade unions would be liberal and reformist, he suggested that the process of seeking to create such a party was an arena to fight for a transformation of the trade unions (and the consciousness of unionized workers).

Following the 1938 discussions, the SWP adopted the slogan of a Labor Party (or sometimes Workers Party to distinguish it from the British model) and found it became an important central element of their agitation, especially in the context of the ongoing American Labor Party (ALP) campaign in New York.^[4] Most importantly, it became a key plank of their work within the trade unions–the call to form a labor party made concrete the strategic task of breaking from the Democrats, tying together the program of rank-and-file opposition caucuses they fostered. Even as the ALP declined and immediate agitational work on a labor party receded, it remained a part of the SWP’s theoretical and strategic arsenal–while not asserting that the course of an US revolution must run through a labor party, they projected it as a likely course.

Cannon gave a broad-ranging series of lectures, collected in 1953 as America’s Road to Socialism.^[5] There, he suggested that economic conditions were such that in a future economic crisis, a coalition between the Democratic Party and labor would break down. In such a situation, “Labor will be compelled to take the next step in political action–to break the coalition with the Democrats once and for all, and to form its own party.” He then suggested, optimistically, that “when for the first time the American workers as a class begin to turn to politics on their own account” that an explicitly revolutionary Marxist party such as the SWP would “find its own native environment, its natural field of work” and become “the leaven that leaveneth the whole lump.” Describing the crop of labor “leaders” of the time he went on, “these overweight palookas can’t fight anybody, except their own rank and file, and they can’t do that without the help of the government and the employers…. These labor ‘statesmen’ will not be fit for leadership in the new situation…. The workers, under such conditions, must and will turn to militancy and throw up leaders of a new mold.” And in such a situation, “the revolutionary Marxist party will get a hearing and become a mentor of the new militant staff of leaders.”

Effectively, Cannon was projecting a replay, at a higher level, of the political and labor developments of the 1930s–where all the things he described took place, but found themselves ultimately cut short. The optimistic predictions of the SWP for workers’ mobilization (pessimistic for the US economy) were not to pass–instead the position of international dominance the US emerged into following WWII carried it forward for the next half century. The disintegration of its strategic outlook undermined the SWP so greatly that it set the stage for its eventual collapse. But the approach it took to the Labor Party question transcends conjunctural speculation and remains a thorough evaluation of how to approach such issues. The goal is not merely a labor party, and a labor party may not appear the most direct path to reach the goal. But often in politics the viable path is a wending one that follows the contours available. Eagles may see the whole of the landscape–but for us plodding creatures bound to the terrestrial plain, our only course may be to flow like a river.

In countries like Britain or Australia with already developed liberal and bourgeois labor parties, we cannot simply ignore them, but necessarily project the likely course to mass militant struggle will involve splits as well. In the US, lacking even such a party, the course will likely run through at least the movement for one, if not its creation. The nature of a party, like the struggle for socialism itself, is not predetermined. It will be important to do what the SWP sought to do in the 40s and 50s, and seek to shape its course. The call for a labor party need not be an end-game, but rather a strategic “maneuver” that creates a step towards political independence, and an arena for political development. The question posed should not be “should we be for a labor party”–rather it should be what sort of labor party are we for, and how do we advocate and advance its specific development in such a direction.

1. Jed Holtz, "A labor party could be key in the fight against the right," December 2024, https://socialism.com/fs-article/the-potential-of-a-labor-party-in-the-fight-against-the-right/.

   ↩

2. Leon Trotsky, “On the Labor Party Question in America,” Marxist Internet Archive, 1932, https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1932/xx/lp.htm.

   ↩

3. Trotsky, “On the Labor Party Question in the United States,” Marxist Internet Archive, 1938, https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/04/lp.htm.

   ↩

4. James P. Cannon, “Campaign for a Labor Party!,” Marxist Internet Archive, 1943, https://www.marxists.org/archive/cannon/works/1943/labor.htm.

   ↩

5. Cannon, America’s Road To Socialism (Pioneer Publishers, 1953), https://www.marxists.org/archive/cannon/works/1953/Americas%20road%20to%20Socialism.pdf.

   ↩