Should we have a National Labor Party (NLP)

[dcsmart]

if congress does not pass EFCA and there are some Dem's that do not vote for it, shouldn't labor finally separate itself from both parties and concentrate on starting their own. I think they should. i think all the labor union leaders in this country should meet and form a National Labor Party. they should field candidates in local, state and federal elections especially in republican states and those states were Dem's voted against EFCA. The many union members in this country would be a great base to start the ball rolling. I'm sure the party could get on the ballots around the country. If we had a party like this, one which would champion many of the issues working people want and need, strong labor laws, health care, living wages, and renegotiated trade agreements, i think it would be a formidable opposition to our two corporate parties. I really think many people would vote for candidates that are fighting for them, the workers of this country:

Phil Gasper writes, in the The Communist Manifesto: A Road Map to History's Most Important Political Document, that
"Marx and Engels did not define the working class in terms of the work its members do. In particular, the membership of the working class is not restricted to manual, industrial, or manufacturing workers. Rather, it consists of all those who survive only be selling their ability to work. In their words, it is 'a class of laborers, who live only so long as they find work, and who find work only so long as their labor increases capital.' pg106

Gasper continues, "this definition applies not just to blue-collar factory workers, but also to the vast majority of people who work in the service sector and in white-collar jobs. It makes sense to define the working class in this way because workers in all these areas are subject to the same sorts of economic pressures, no matter what the precise nature of their work. Indeed, one of the most important trends of the past on hundred years has been the way in which members of the workforce who at one time regarded themselves as outside the working class--clerical workers, nurses, teachers, and others-- have increasingly found themselves subject to the same harsh workplace discipline as traditional factory employees. As a result, many workers in these occupations have joined unions and shown an increasing willingness to go on strike." pg 106

i think this defines the majority of Americans. and i think we need a party that would speak for us specifically from a working class point of view. of course, we couldn't quote Marx...but for me, a card-carrying Democratic Socialist, it would be hard.

anyway, don't we need candidates that run on working class issues for working class people....again, that is the majority of america using the definition above. This is not Obama bashing....this is two party bashing. Lets see what happens, but if EFCA does not pass and democrats vote against it...well...what is a working class boy to do......that is the question....

[xchrom]

1. i've often thought so -- but there seems to be some inability

for labour groups to get along that well to join together.

[dflprincess]

2. Either that or a Democratic Socialist party

One thing though; every so often somebody in DFL has a spasm thinking it's time to drop the F&L from the name. One reason for this stupid idea is that "hardly anyone belongs to a union anymore" (not my words).

If a Labor party has any chance of succeeding, organized labor needs to make it clear to my fellow "white collar" cube rats that, just because we don't belong to a union, wear dockers to work, bang on keyboards all day and are salaried doesn't mean we aren't "labor". Anyone whose annual compensation doesn't include major amounts of stock options and who would not receive much more than a few weeks severence if they were laid off is labor.

[mikehiggins]

3. There does not exist the level of dissatisfaction necessary for

a successful third party. Greens, Perotistas, whatever, each attempt at forming an effective "third front" has failed for one degree or another. On problem is the fractionalisation (is that really a word?) of the American public. Also, unlike Europe, for example, we have no actual history of third party government (or fourth or fifth or whatever). People tend to be resistant to change and forming a National Labor Party would be serious change indeed. Also, third parties complicate things for the MSM and are invariably treated as oddities, if not farces.

What should be done instead is to identify the most offensive "blue dog" and organize to kick his butt as soon as possible.

If we can elect a Barack Obama, in the face of three hundred years of racism, we should be able to de-elect a bozo like Evan Bayh.

All it would take is one victory and the drones and time-servers would come running, just like both the Dems and GOPukes did when it looked like Perot's support was up for grabs.

On the other hand, a third party, if not coming from the right, like the DLC, will also face opposition from the "pragmatic realists" of our own party. Keep in mind that, just like with Joementum, if we seriously challenge one of the party "stalwarts" you can expect to see the Democratic leadership rallying to his/her defense just like they did in that primary challenge. Watching the Democratic leadership support LIEberman against the democratically chosen primary winner left a bad taste in my mouth that still hasn't gone away.

Again, the purpose/job of a professional politician is to get re-elected.

Nuff said.