We must have different ideas about what counts speaking impersonally. In a
not-very-roundabout way, he called me and the people I work with liars who
sneak around subverting activist movements and deceiving people about the
nature of our work. Is it OK to do that if instead of using plain language,
I say that "some people" avoid the political responsibility of addressing
the consequences of their action by failing to accurately represent or
declining to comprehensively understand the history that they purport to
present, and speak in harmful ways that may hve negative consequences of
activist work? And to encourage Leo to carry on this crusade in other venues
is irresponsible of you. Manners are important, but it's possible to be rude
and destructive while maintaining a facade of civility. We're not talking
mere advocacy hrere, but incitement. Come on, Michael.
--jks
>From: Michael Perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: [PEN-L:15151] Re: Re: If Open and Frank Discussion Is
>Red-Baiting...
>Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 16:48:19 -0700
>
>I agree that Leo might want to carry this debate on elsewhere. I
>appreciate that he did depersonalize his response.
>
>
>On Sat, Jul 14, 2001 at 10:44:47PM -0000, Justin Schwartz wrote:
> > Michael, it's time to stop this loathesome crap. --jks
> >
> >
> > >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >Subject: [PEN-L:15144] If Open and Frank Discussion Is Red-Baiting...
> > >Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 12:15:53 EDT
> > >
> > >As tempting as it is to respond in kind to Justin's torrent of personal
> > >abuse in kind, I will not do so. For the personal abuse is just one
>more
> > >device designed to forestall open and frank discussion of how
>ideological
> > >left [primarily socialist and communist] organizations and mass
>democratic
> > >organizations, especially trade unions, have interacted. Every attempt
>at
> > >frank discussion on any particular point of this relationship is met
>with
> > >accusations of red-baiting, and if that doesn't halt all discussion,
>with
> > >personal abuse, such as Justin's accusations that I am a liar and a
>fool if
> > >I don't accept his account of the relationship among TDU, _Labor
>Notes_,
> > >and Solidarity, and their common indebtedness and links to the
>Trotskyist
> > >tradition.
> > >
> > >The history of interaction between ideological left organizations and
>the
> > >trade union movement in the US is long and well-documented. It starts
>with
> > >DeLeon and IWW, it involves Socialists, Communists and Trotskyists of
>all
> > >sorts, and it continues to this day. No one could write a history of
>the
> > >AFL without an account of Gompers split from Marxism and his battles
>with
> > >AFL Socialists, and then the IWW; no one could provide an account of
>the
> > >rise of CIO without the pivotal role of Communists, many of whom had
>been
> > >involved in dual CP unions during the 'third period'; no could write a
> > >history of the "left" CIO unions such as the UE, or explain their purge
> > >from the CIO, without an explanation of the battles over Communism; no
>one
> > >could write a history of the UAW, the ILGWU, or my own AFT, to mention
>just
> > >a few examples, without a study of the factional fights between
>Socialists,
> > >Communists and Trotskyists of every stripe. No one could discuss the
>twists
> > >and turns of the labor mov!
> > >em!
> > >ent's relationship with the Afri
> > >can-American community, without an analysis of the role of Socialists
>and
> > >Communists, from A. Phillip Randolph on. No one could explain the
>AFL-CIO's
> > >international work without reference to the anti-Communists of the
> > >Lovestonites and Shachtmanites. And all of this just touches the
>surface.
> > >
> > >Those connections continue today, and it is disingeneous to suggest
> > >otherwise. To cite the most obvious example: the old AFL-CIO leadership
>was
> > >clearly linked to Shachtmanites of the SDUSA variety, which explains,
>as
> > >much as anything, Sweeney's decision to join DSA. When Shanker was
>elected
> > >AFT President, he filled its national staff with SDUSA types. DSA
>members
> > >can be found among the elected leadership and national organizing staff
>of
> > >AFSCME, SEIU, UNITE and the UAW. Solidarity types have been key to
> > >organizing opposition caucuses in the Teamsters, the UAW and the
> > >Transportation Workers.
> > >
> > >Now if Bill Fletcher can work at the very top of the AFL-CIO, and be
>open
> > >and honest about his leadership of the Black Radical Congress and
> > >membership in Freedom Road Socialist Organization [FRSO], than there
>really
> > >is no reason for anyone to suggest that we can not have a frank
>discussion
> > >of all of these issues.
> > >
> > >My local union, the UFT, has four internal caucuses: [a] the leadership
> > >caucus, which ranges from moderate and liberal Democrats to democratic
> > >socialists and radical democrats, with a few retired SDUSA members and
>some
> > >DSA members [b] the main opposition caucus, organized by the CP, [c] a
>much
> > >smaller group, consisting of a handful of Solidarity members who refuse
>to
> > >have anything to do with the CP caucus, and [d] a new, ill-organized
>caucus
> > >with a sort of 'third worldist' bent which has attracted members of
> > >Progressive Labor and Freedom Road Socialist Organization. You
>understand
> > >nothing about UFT internal politics if you do not understand those
> > >political realities. To attempt to squelch public discussion of them as
> > >some sort of 'red baiting' is, to my mind, fundamentally
>anti-democratic.
> > >Discussion of these realities goes on all the time in private
>conversation,
> > >but only the 'insiders' are party to these discussions and in the know.
>I
> > >refuse to allow myself to be constrain!
> > >ed!
> > > by such anti-democratic dictate
> > >s.
> > >
> > >If you can't defend your politics in open and pubic forums, there is
> > >something wrong with your politics.
> > >
> > >Leo Casey
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
> >
>
>--
>Michael Perelman
>Economics Department
>California State University
>Chico, CA 95929
>
>Tel. 530-898-5321
>E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
