The following articles were written by the US Trotskyist organisation known as “Spark” in 2024 - just after the US elections.
It's a “rout” - that's what headlines claimed the day after the election. Trump was said not only to be winning the popular vote by a big margin, he was on track to sweep up all of the “swing” states - solidifying a large electoral vote count. The Republicans already took over the Senate, and perhaps the House of Representatives. Trump, with his usual understatement, declared it, “the biggest victory ever for any president”.
In fact, as more numbers came in, it became clear that this was not so much a victory for Trump, as it was a vote against the Democrats. Trump appears to have about the same (or even slightly fewer) votes than he had in 2020 when he lost. But the Democratic vote literally plunged, with Harris down maybe 11 million votes from what Biden got in 2020.
In fact, it seems that a lot of people just sat out the 2024 election. The turnout was not particularly big, about 58% of eligible voters, down from 66% in 2020. Only about 143 million people voted, 15 million fewer than last time, and about 19 million people didn't even bother to register to vote.*
This country has always been marked by deep strains of racism and misogyny, and it was obvious that Trump played on this history in his campaign to denigrate Harris. But history doesn't explain the magnitude of the Democratic Party loss in 2024.
On the face of it, people were voting, as the saying goes, “their pocketbook”. And their pocketbook was not doing well. Infl ation was killing most people, and above all the labouring people. The lack of decent paying jobs was forcing more people to work two jobs, or even three. Many more were working in the “underground economy”. And all the measures of social disintegration were painfully increasing: homelessness, drug usage, drug overdose, suicide, domestic violence.
No, the economy was not doing well, despite Biden's claim that it was. It might have been doing well for the wealthiest layers of the population, but not for ordinary working people. Biden's claim, with Harris signing on, was just a slap in the face, a mark of how disdainful the Democratic Party is toward the ordinary population.
So Trump got in with much less than full support from the population (only a little over one quarter voted for him). Nonetheless, Trump is about to be in the White House, and he will use the election to claim legitimacy for what he does.
The danger is not that Trump is now in position to carry out reactionary policies. The policies carried out by government, no matter who occupied the White House, have long been reactionary. And from one to the next, they got worse, and would have done so under Harris. The economy has been in the midst of a long-lasting crisis, which reinforces the push of the capitalist class to extort more wealth from labour. The political system simply signs on, helping not only to shift more to the capitalists, but also to atomise the working class.
The danger of this election is not the so-called threat against American “democracy,” which has never been a democracy, but only a political system under which the people with money set the rules.
The lurking danger in Trump's victory is that workers could begin to assimilate some of the most vile, and demeaning attitudes toward each other, attitudes that will help divide the working class when it needs to bring all of its forces together.
Trump will soon be President, with his party probably in control of Congress. If so, he won't be able to blame the Democrats when he doesn't carry out the myriad promises he made to workers.
But to carry them out, to really improve the situation of the labouring population, the majority in this country, Trump would have to take a knife to all the policies and tax codes that favour the capitalist class, the wealthiest class today, his class.
Of course, he will not do that.
And so we can expect to hear - from the White House - more screeds against criminal immigrants and welfare cheats, against women who can't do “men's jobs”, but want them; denunciations of transsexuals invading women's locker rooms, etc. , etc. , etc.
The profound danger in a situation with a demagogue like Trump in offi ce comes from the fact the working class has no party of its own, no party that speaks from the viewpoint of the interests and needs of every part of the working class.
From that standpoint, it's significant that in this election there were campaigns for a working class party, in which the multitudes of the working class could fi nd their place. These campaigns were small, carried out by a few militants only, in the states of Michigan, Illinois and California. They, of course, cannot counter Trump.
But those three campaigns, small in Michigan, even if touching the whole state, only in one district each in Illinois and California - at least gave working people the possibility to register their support for the perspective that working people need their own party. The name of the slate in Michigan and Illinois said it all: “Working Class Party”. And it was for that name that many people voted, several hundred thousand in Michigan, some thousands in Illinois and California. This vote shows that there is a road that has been opened, a road that needs to be taken.
The following articles lay out the perspective of the militants who started this work, and a report on the results of their campaigns for a working class party.
9 November 2024
* At the time of writing, votes were still being counted in many states, particularly in California - so the authors point out that their fi gures are provisional but that at least the “outline can be seen”.
Working people need our own party
This editorial was published in Spark workplace newsletters just before the election.
Sunday before the election, as this is being written, we don't know who will be president, Harris or Trump. We don't know which party, Democratic or Republican, will control the new Senate, nor the House of Representatives.
But two things we do know. No matter who wins, the mega-wealthy capitalist class will have its interests defended. Once again, the working class will not be represented.
You hope that's not true? You hope one of these candidates will be a break with the past?
Yes, Donald Trump may sometimes be stick-it-in-your-eye boisterous. Kamala Harris may have a more modern style than the usual boring wealthy male who's been president.
Different, maybe. But they each were chosen by their own parties. And those two parties have always represented the wealthy class of people which controls the economy of this country.
Trump and Harris may pretend to speak to working people, but, when in office, they both acted for big business, banks and the financial industry. They inflated business profits with contracts, subsidies, tax laws and grants. They both used their office, when elected, to push funding for wars in Ukraine, the Middle East, and unknown places.
Their two parties have a history. Ever since the end of the Civil War, one of them has been in power. One of them or both - and no other party.
No matter what happened - warfare which never ended, or economic crisis which never ended - no matter what happened, one of these two parties led the government.
There might have been two parties - the better to fool the population - but it was still a dictatorship, a two-party dictatorship, the longest lasting dictatorship in the world. Behind it was the social/economic dictatorship of the capitalist class.
What was missing during all these years was a party representing the interests of working people, who are by far the majority. There was no working class party, organised by the working class, putting forward working class demands, pushing to build unity inside the working class.
Certainly, there have been candidates who spoke to workers about the disasters caused by capitalism. The most important was Eugene Debs who ran for president in 1904, 1908, 1912 and 1920. He went to jail for leading an important railroad strike. He went to prison for campaigning against World War I, declaring, “there was only one war in which I would enlist and that was the war of the workers of the world against the exploiters of the world”. Debs was a militant of the working class. But there was no party.
There has not been one since. But that is what needs to be built. Until the working class organises itself politically, working people will be trapped within this two-party system, which may give workers a vote, but no representation.
The appearance of Working Class Party on the ballot goes against this whole history. Compared to the two parties with their army of campaigners, with their hundreds of billions of dollars, with the big media on their side, Working Class Party may seem insignificant. There were only 15 in Michigan, out of thousands, and only one candidate in Illinois, one in California, while people in Maryland were still only gathering signatures to put Working Class Party back on the ballot.
Working Class Party on the ballot will not change the workers' situation today. For that, the working class has to move, to organise itself to carry out a real fight. And it needs to organise its own party. But those are the very points Working Class Party candidates made with their campaign.
With this party on the ballot, some tens of thousands of people could break with the two-party system. With their vote, they could say they want the working class to build its own party. They have a way to say publicly what they want.
It's only the very beginning, but beginnings are necessary.
4 November 2024
2024 US elections: several hundred thousand votes for a Working Class Party
We've reprinted this report on Working Class Party's results in the 2024 election from a posting on the results so that they could be reimbursed for their campaign expenses! In the space of a week, workingclassfight.com
Several hundred thousand people voted for candidates who want to see the working class build its own party, breaking with the two parties that represent big business. That's not a lot. But at least in three states this perspective was raised.
Those of us who campaigned in Michigan, Illinois and California often talked to people fed up with the two old parties. Quite a few of them liked the idea that the working class would build its own party - but many wondered if it could happen in this country. Why not? Working people need our own party.
The votes in these three states for a working class party were somewhat higher this year. In a few districts, particular situations explained the increase. But overall, votes were up. So whether any of them doubted it can happen, a few more of them, with their vote, said, “we want a working class party”.
The following are the scores, as of November 15.
Results for Working Class Party in Michigan
Working Class Party has been on the ballot five times in Michigan since 2016, and once again had enough votes to qualify for next time.
Voters throughout the whole state could vote for the fi rst two candidates who ran for statewide education positions. Mary Ann's votes were about 98,000 higher than last time.
Mary Ann Hering, State Board of Education, 233,268 votes, 2.3%;
Suzanne Roehrig, Wayne State University Board of Governors, 179,852 votes, 1.8%.
The next seven candidates ran in congressional districts that together reach half of Michigan's population. With one exception, they were all higher, with the increase running from about one thousand to over five thousand more, and five had a higher percent of the vote.
Liz Hakola, 1st District, 8,544 votes, 1.8%;
Lou Palus, 3rd District, 5,546 votes, 1.3%;
Kathy Goodwin, 8th District, 8,487 votes, 2%;
Jim Walkowicz, 9th District, 12,126 votes, 2.6%;
Andrea L. Kirby, 10th District, 11,152 votes, 2.6%;
Gary Walkowicz, 12th District, 9,397 votes, 2.6%;
Simone R. Coleman, 13th District, 13,360 votes, 4.2%.
Seven others ran for State Representative in districts around Detroit. Even if districts and/or candidates were different, overall, the vote of our candidates for these positions was higher.
Mark DaSacco, District 2, 2,450 votes, 5.8%;
Larry Darnell Betts, District 3, 1,112 votes, 4.3%;
Linda Rayburn, District 7, 1,739 votes, 6%;
Logan Ausherman, District 8, 1,400 votes, 3.3%;
Hashim Malik Bakari, District 13, 1,428 votes, 2.9%;
Linda Green-Harris, District 16, 2,050 votes, 4.2%.
Results for Working Class Party in Illinois
The Working Class Party of Illinois has been on the ballot in one congressional district touching parts of Chicago and its near suburbs since 2022. The higher score ran up this year means Working Class Party for the fi rst time qualified to remain on the ballot for the next campaign. And that opens the door to run an additional one or two candidates.
Ed Hershey, 4th Congressional District, 10,415 votes, 5.1%.
Results for a Worker Running for Congress in California
In California, the law is so restrictive that putting a new party on the ballot is nearly impossible. So the people who want to see the working class build its own party collected signatures to put up an independent candidate. Legally, he may be considered “non-partisan,” but his whole campaign made it clear that his goal is to see the working class build its own party. His results were as follows:
Juan Rey, 37th Congressional District, 44,450 votes, 21. 7%.
A society so terribly destructive like this one won't be overhauled through an election. A new society must be built. The working class has the forces to wrench control from the capitalist class and their two big parties. It has the capacity to organise itself to control the economy and make decisions that serve the population. But the working class will need its own party to do that.
A working class party will not be built by an election. But this election let those candidates who ran, and all their supporters, send a message to the rest of their class, “We need our own party”. These results show that some tens of thousands of people agree.
15 November 2024