Although some promising tendencies appeared in this initial political reactivization of labor, the new Congress with its continuing anti-labor, anti-democratic and cold war policies, and particularly its failure to meet the problem of unemployment, emphasized that labor would be handicapped as long as it failed to go beyond narrow coalition policies confined to the old parties. The issues of unemployment, democracy and peace are of such magnitude and depth that under fire of concerted Big Business attack labor will be impelled to seek more effective political means than those provided by the old parties to curb the monopoly power and win basic reform. Recent social and economic changes in the country and in the relationship of the United States to the rest of the world affect profoundly the course and the form of the next political advance by labor and the broad mass movement. These developments are changing the grounds upon which monopoly was enabled over a long period principally because of its favored world position combined with great internal resources to keep labor and popular dissatisfaction within the bounds of the two-party system. Throughout the era of monopoly and imperialism, wars or war incitement played an extraordinary role in repelling and diverting into safe channels popular political movements in opposition to monopoly. Four of the five major political revolta vere headed off in this fashion -- the Populists by the first wave of imperialist expansion culminating in the Spanish-American War; the Socialist and the Progressive reform movements of 1912-16 by World War I; the promise of expanding independent labor action during the New Deal period by World War II; the Wallace Progressive movement by the cold war, and its remnants by the Korean War. In each case, the Democratic Party took over enough of the reform program from the political radicals to appease the revolt while becoming the government party during war or intensified war preparations. In the present period, as a consequence of the new world structure, U.S. monopoly no longer has its former freedom of action on a global scale. The progress of the socialist world and of colonial revolution, side by side with the crisis of world imperialism, create new possibilities for averting war, and thus for depriving monopoly of the opportunity to use war as a means of blocking and containing a new mass breakaway from the major parties. The contradictions of world capitalism, so to speak, are being centered in the United States. The conflicts arising from them, as monopoly seeks to place an ever greater burden upon the people, will tend to be fought out more and more within the country. The class struggle will grow sharper. As the true issues of competition between the two world social systems become clearer the workers will also become more radical, capitalism will not seem so rosy, and the old capitalist parties will be seen as a hindrance to social progress. - Internally, the relation of the people's forces is more favorable to the emergence of an independent labor-led people's party than during previous periods of mass struggle. The unions are far stronger and better entrenched in the key sectors of the economy. They are in a better position to express the demands of the broad wage-earning population and to lead a people's anti-monopoly movement in a new wave of independent political action. As an established political force within the present two-party system with the beginnings of coalition with the Negro people, the farmers and dissident liberal elements labor is in a strong position to lead a breakaway from the monopoly-controlled parties, as the process of political realignment leads to the disintegration of the outmoded party system. The mass displacement of farmers, which is countenanced and sustained by national policy, has for some time been rekindling the spirit of farm revolt, which under present conditions can find a positive outcome only in combination with the labor movement. As the city middle strata face the prospect of a deep financial crisis, on top of their increasing subordination to monopoly, they too would tend toward such a combination. During recent years another social force of great dynamic potential has come forward, and will play a decisive role in the alignment of people's forces. The In some Negro freedom movement is developing a strong political consciousness. respects, it is pressing more persistently than the labor movement for political action independent of both major parties. It tends toward independent local political action, on the basis of its own organized forces, to elect Negroes to public office, and to press for full civil rights. The Negro people are more conscious than other sectors of the limitations and inadequacies of the old parties. They are inspired by the successes of the colonial revolutions, by the freedom victories of the colored peoples, and are keenly aware of the concessions that can be won in this country as a consequence of world pressures upon American imperial ism. In the developing economic and democratic struggles of this period, the fight for democracy in the South including unionization and basic agrarian and polit - - ical reform will play a key role, with profound repercussions on the traditional party system, as in national politics as a whole. The Negro freedom movement has a capacity of its own for independent political action, but it needs a sound and firm alliance with labor to be fully effective. It remains for labor to grasp this outstretched hand firmly in order to overcome its own political lag and to advance the interests of labor as a class. The combination of these two great social forces into a political coalition can initiate the next major political advance of the people. Even under conditions of a new mass upsurge there may be strong pressures within the labor, Negro, farmers and people's movements to continue to operate politically within the Democratic Party as long as some immediate objectives can be obtained in this fashion. But this will be possible only up to a certain point, and then only if labor and other popular social forces are able to subordinate or subdue the Dixiecrats, city bosses and other reactionary elements. But the very process by which this is done will accentuate the decentralizing and disintegrating influences within the Democratic Party, and hasten the realignment of political forces. The direction of this realignment, if it is to represent a permanent and real advance, must be toward breaking out of the limitations of the monopoly-controlled parties in order to create a party which labor can call its own and to which all popular and anti-monopoly forces will adhere. An orientation of working within the Democratic Party with the objective of transforming it into a liberal-labor party could well play into the hands of monopoly. The latter sees the Democratic Party as the alternate reform instrument to the Republican Party, which is the preferred party of Big Business and conservatism. If a labor party is to arise, monopoly would like to see it made safe for capitalism. The Democratic Party, under conditions of a new upsurge, may well make room for labor candidates if this is the way to stem a major breakaway and the rise of genuine working class politics. A narrow coalition policy, confined to work within the Democratic Party together with the trade union top bureaucracy and the liberals, amounts to looking backward and can be an obstacle to forward political action that will lead to a labor-led people's party. This advance will not be accomplished by missionary work at the top levels of the Democratic Party. The spade work will have to be done by the Left and Progressive forces down below in the labor movement, in the Negro freedom movement, among the farmers and in the communities. Whether the advance comes as a leap forward or as a slower process, a new labor-led party is likely to emerge as a many-sided development. It will be coposed of varied currents and elements locally and on a national scale, seeking common ground in opposition to monopoly and reaction. These might well encompass labor and Negro political action committees, minority movements within the old parties including community clubs and entire local organizations, electoral blocs and coalitions of the labor-Negro and labor-farmer type, community united fronts, regional independent parties, various socialist and liberal tendencies and groupings, and other new forms of political action that may arise. Political action committees of labor may operate on a broader scale than within the old parties, seeking to combine and lead independent political forces toward specific legislative and electoral objectives. There may arise again various intermediate forms between the existing labor political action committees and fully independent parties, such as appeared in the New Deal days. Left and progressive elements in the labor and people's movements might seek to forcus these varied elements and currents upon the objective of a new labor-led party. The decisive turn in that direction would have to be made by the trade unions, as the central organized base for the new party. While such a movement will include various socialist currents, it is not likely to subscribe to socialist aims, nor does it now seem likely that a party emerging from it will adopt a socialist program, at least in its formative and early stages. Essentially, it might be a labor radical reform party, with a democratic anti-monopoly and peace program. It would include people and organizations with different views on social questions, but ready to unite and work together for a common program of immediate demands. No one should be excluded because of their social philosophy, nor should such a party attempt to impose a single philosophy upon its members and supporters. Communiste should co-operate with all forces seeking to accelerate the process of political alignment leading to the mass breakaway from the monopoly-dominated parties and the formation of the labor-led people's party. They would expect to become an accepted component of such a party, according to the form decided upon for all, with the same privileges as other groups to advocate specific views, genuine working class politics and socialism.. The formation of a new labor-led mass party would constitute a great political advance and could win real victories for the people. Whatever limitations might in time appear in such a party, would have to be overcome democratically, and would no doubt involve further advances. It is not inevitable that the American working class, in the process of attaining maturity as a political and social force, would follow the pattern or the policies of the Labor Party of Great Britain. The British Labor Party has shown that labor reformism, defending capitalism and becoming dependent upon it, is incapable of leading the nation out of a deep crisis. Communists strive to assure a more effective labor-led people's party in the United States by fighting within the labor movement for independent working class politics, and for a party grounded on working class unity and pursuing a policy directed against monopoly. COMMITTEE EXHIBIT NO. 11 2. The Problem of Class Collaboration The main obstacle within the trade union movement to economic and democratic advance is the class collaborationist policy which is prevalent in the leadership. This policy rests primarily upon the opportunism arising from the relatively high standard of living for important sections of the workers as a result of the continuing economic expansion of the United States late into the imperis list era. However, internally and on a world scale, the objective base for this position is changing. The pattern of class collaboration established by the AFL at the dawn of the imperialist era lasted until the great crisis of the 1930's, despite formidable challenge from Left and rank and file movements. It took the form of collaboration between the craft unions and monopoly, at the expense of the workers in the mes production industries. This pattern was broken by the CIO, in the great leap forward which brought the workers as an organized force face to face with top monopoly in the mass production industries. During the period of economic expansion which began with World War II, a policy of so-called class partnership became prevalent in the leadership of the industrial unions. This new pattern of class collaboration was based primarily upon the long-term interest of monopoly to stabilize labor conditions in the decisive branches of production, so that it could take greatest advantage of the opportunities for maximum profit during the war and cold war periods. Significant concessions were made to the unions on wages and benefits, while monopoly relied cheifly upon labor-saving machinery and speed-up to keep labor costs down and maximize profits under conditions of rising prices. Although the unions grew in membership during this period, the "class partnership" policy subordinated labor's interests to the principal economic and political aims of monopoly. The consequences are extremely serious. The most decisive sectors of the organized workers were kept within the confines imposed by the prevalent policy. The unions were in danger of becoming a component part of the elaborate system of economic coordination set up by monopoly through the state. They are hamstrung by long-term union contracts and by the elaborate machinery of government-backed or supervised management-labor relations. The capacity for independent economic and political action by labor is greatly hanpered. The growth of business unionism and all forms of corruption within the labor movement stifles trade union democracy and restrains rank and file activity. The establishment over a period of more or less stable contractual relations between monopoly and the major unions tended to discourage drives to organize new branches of industry or unorganized regions, especially the South, with the result also that unions failed to pay proper attention to Negro and other underprivileged workers. Most serious has been the support by the dominant labor leadership for the molear arms race and the cold war, which is at the heart of class collaboration as it has developed during this period. The hold of labor opportunism depends directly upon the willingness and the ability of monoply to grant concessions. Without them, the "class partnership" policy would be unworkable within the framework of the traditional democratic state. The rich home base of U.S. monopoly accounts to a large degree for its ability to grant concession when confronted with a powerful labor movement. But this maneuverability also arises from the favored world position of the United States throughout the imperialist era. Particularly in the period since World War II, when U.8. monopoly became by far the dominant power in world capitalism, the global position of the United States came to exert an extraordinary influence upon internal development. With respect to the granting of concessions to decisive sectors of the workers, the world position of U.S. monopoly is felt in a number of ways. The central role of super-profits from colonial exploitation in creating a base for labor opportuniam in Britain was already pointed out by Marx and Engels, and Lenin developed this explanation more completely for the period of matured imperialism. This was most pronounced with respect to the older imperialisms, with extensive colonisl empires. In the new imperialism of the United States, charecterized primarily by monopoly economic penetration abroad rather than outright colonialism, the role of super-profits of the imperialist type was somewhat disguised because they did not take the classical colonial form. Nevertheless, they came to play a very inportant role in providing an imperialist base for labor opportunism, especially in the more recent period. Since World War II, American capital investments abroad reached unprecedented levels, as U.S. monopoly extended its holdings and controls throughout the world capitalist and colonial structure. Profits from foreign investment came to account for at least 15 to 20 per cent of the total profit of all U. S. corporations. But 90 per cent of these foreign profits are held by the 200 largestoorporations, and probably represent about one-fourth of their total profits, and in the case of oil and other minerals, well over half. This helps account fundamentally for the opportunism prevalent in the labor movement, particularly during the height of the cold war which was also the period of the most extensive and aggressivo economic expension by U.S. monopoly abroad. The connection between imperialism and labor opportunism in the United States was established over a long period during which monopoly took advantage of the geographic security of the country in two devastating world wars to expand at home and abroad at the expense of rival powers weakened by war and by colonial revolutions. Exclusive U. S. imperialist control of Latin America and the extension of the U. S. monopoly structure into Canada (both also remote from the theaters of world war) gave American Big Business command over the rich natural resources of the entire Western Hemisphere. The relatively high wage structure of the United States rests to a large extent upon the super-exploitation of Latin American labor over a long period, and the command of Canadian resources, to which have been added in recent years new extensions of monopoly penetration -- in the Middle East, Afrin, and Southeast Asia. Obscured, but nonetheless real, are the additional huge super-profits obtained indirectly from the greatly expended Wall St. investments in leading corporations of other imperialist powers (as in England, West Germany, Japan, etc.). An important role was also played in U. S. economic growth by the accumulation in this country of superior technology resulting from world scientific research and also of scientists, and technicians and skilled workers from abroad, when these could not be utilized in the lands of their origin because of certain local factors of deterioration as well as war. These world factors, together with the rich home base, ave U. S. monopoly a wide range of maneuver with respect to labor, in terms of concessions on wages and conditions. In return, the dominant labor leadership the conservative as well as the liberal wing, each in its own way -- gave support to the cold war policies and to the splitting role of anit-Communism within the labor movement at home, as well as in the world trade union movement. The AFL has a long record in this respect. But the CIO, which had played a positive world role, together with the British trade unions led the walk-out from the World Federation of Trade Unions at the time when U.S. monopoly, through the Marshall Plan, was charting its course of aggressive expansionism. Simultaneously, the CIO initiated its own expulsion policy against Left-led unions in the United State, and took the lead in splitting the new Latin-American trade union movement, which it had previously helped unify. Both wings of the labor leadership have operated through the labor movement abroad to support Right-wing social-democracy against the peace forces and against the revolutionary colonial and democratic nations list movement. Changes which are proceeding in the demestic economy cza on a world scale arc beginning to undermine the base for the present class collaborationist policy in the labor novment. The relative slowing down of economic expansion and the growth of permanent unemployment are beginning to change the situation at home. The hardening of monopoly, on the one hand, and the re-emergence of rank and file militancy, on the other, arecreating a crisis for the "class-partnership" leadership. The unfolding of present trends will lead to the growth of class struggle policies in the trade unions. The acute contradictions in the world position of U.S. monopoly plays a deoisive role in this respect. This contradiction deepends, as it becomes more and more difficult to attempt to solve the historio competition between the two world systems by war, as the national liberation movements place further restrictions upon monopoly expansion abroad, as labor and democratic movements in other capital. ist countries defend their national sovereignty, and as inter-imperialist rivalries come forward more sharply. Although monoply may be forced to trim its sails in some respect in an extended period of peaceful co-esixtence, essentially it seeks to recompense itself from losses sustained on a world scale by stepping up its offensive against the workers at home and against the living conditions of the people as a whole. In this situation, greater mase struggles than in the past will be required to force concessions from monopoly, to protect the key positions of the trade unions, and to combat the austerity program of monoply in general. The dominant labor leadership, under rank and file pressure, will be forced to seek new mejor concessions from monopoly. In |