Is Labor for Peace or for Democrats?

It is long overdue that labor leads all progressive causes, especially the peace movement, but the latest labor for peace conference was anything but a leadership conference; it was yet another pressure the Democrats scene.

The rule of thumb for all endorsements for our peace marches and anything else should be how many buses of supporters can the endorsing party provide to a given event? With that criteria, we would unfortunately see labor, which can and should provide hundreds of thousands of buses for millions of workers to our peace marches, at the bottom of the list.

The latest labor conferences on peace do not seem to be an improvement over the usual pressure the warmongering Democrats routine, and in fact, seem to be the usual get-in-front-of-the-opposition and neutralize it.

See the World Socialist Website, 3/12/03, "Labor for Peace meeting in Detroit: a platform for union fakers" by Shannon Jones at:
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/mar2003/peac-m12.shtml

Pertinent paragraphs:
"After remaining silent for months as the war drive of the Bush administration escalated, some in the AFL-CIO leadership have taken note of the development of a mass antiwar movement. The labor bureaucrats instinctively fear any genuinely popular movement. They are concerned that opposition to the war against Iraq will intersect with worker discontent over attacks on jobs, education, health care and democratic rights, threatening the union hierarchy’s relations with management and exposing the bankruptcy of their alliance with the Democratic Party."

"The small turnout at the meeting, less than 150, was an expression of the isolation of the union hierarchy from the mass of rank-and-file workers. The majority in attendance were older workers and retirees, mostly those in or around the union apparatus, or members of middle-class protest groups."

"One of the first to speak was Noel Beasley, international vice president of the Union of Needle Trades, Industrial and Textile Workers (UNITE). Beasley identified himself as a supporter of the Labor Party. Founded in 1996 by a section of union officials with the participation of various “left” tendencies close to the union bureaucracy, the essentially stillborn Labor Party is not a genuine political party at all. It does not run candidates and serves as little more than a pressure group on the Democratic Party."

"Beasley spoke as a representative of the loyal opposition to AFL-CIO President John Sweeney, offering friendly advice on how to restore “credibility” to the trade union movement. He argued it was necessary to “position our trade union movement to lead the opposition to war.” Speaking the language of a veteran of political maneuvers, he advised, “We have to make that curve.'"

"Paul Felton, a local official with the American Postal Workers Union and vice chair of Detroit branch of the Green Party, was the only speaker to raise even a mild criticism of the Democratic Party. However, Felton insisted that criticism of the role of the Democratic Party had to be suppressed for the sake of the “unity” of the antiwar movement. In response to a question pointing out the conflict between professing opposition to war and supporting the Democratic Party, Felton declared, “We should not let those views divide us.'"

A serious labor program is offered in this article:
"It had to be based on the international unity of the working class and directed against the capitalist profit system, he said. The first requirement was refusing to subordinate the antiwar movement to the Democratic Party. He went on to cite the disastrous results for the working class of the AFL-CIO’s alliance with the Democrats."
and
"The fight against militarism requires in the first place that the working class adopt an independent and critical stance, opposing the profit system, the big business parties and their defenders and apologists in the AFL-CIO bureaucracy."