I am sorry to see Leo leave. He is very smart. On LBO, he did a devastating job on
an NBER paper on education. I thought that calling people on the list,
Stalinist, was over the top.
I asked him to stop and he didn't. He is correct that Charles jumped in after I asked
for a halt. Sometimes, I give a little more leeway when a message comes
shortly after I make such a request, not knowing if he had the opportunity to receive
the post.
Both Nathan and Leo are correct about my lack of even-handedness. For example, during
the bombing of Yugoslavia, I did not see any purpose in defending Clinton or
piling onto the Serbs at the time. I also appreciate the fact that Nathan is able to
contribute to the list, even though we do not agree on all political matters.
I also think that Nathan's criticism was healthy.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I am going to save Michael the need to issue any more "final warnings." After
> this last e-mail, I will unsubscribe from PEN-L.
>
> Out of respect to those with whom I have dialogued on PEN-L, I will explain
> why I have come to the conclusion that I should take this step of withdrawing
> from the listserv. It is clear to me that there are different sets of rules
> for different people on PEN-L, and since that state of affairs does not sit
> well with me, further conflict around issues of open and honest debate would
> be inevitable. Better that I should depart the scene then be a party to
> useless wrangling. Hopefully, others will be able to have more constructive
> dialogue in my absence.
>
> As disputes have arisen, I have made a number of attempts to address these
> problems with Michael off list, but these efforts have come to naught. While
> I came to the list liking Michael, having previously willing assisted him on
> educational sources for his work, I have lost confidence in his willingness
> to be fair and impartial in moderating disputes on this list. I am mindful of
> the difficulty of the position, and I try not to make quick judgments, but
> this last episode around the Teamsters/Hoffa thread has convinced me that I
> can not expect evenhandedness from him.
>
> When I posted the first e-mail in this thread, I received an off list from
> Michael telling me that what I has posted was "quite interesting," with some
> further inquiries. Before I had an opportunity to reply, Justin weighed in
> with a series of extraordinarily antagonistic postings which, in turn,
> accused me of red-baiting, attacked me personally and called for the thread
> to be censored. Despite the provocation, I made the point of keeping my
> replies to Justin on the substantive points, and avoiding tit-for-tat of
> personal attacks.
>
> I was rather outraged, therefore, when Michael responded on list to Justin's
> charges of "red baiting" as if there was some credibility in them, saying he
> just had not been paying attention to the thread because of other work. As a
> matter of fact, he clearly had been paying attention and his off list e-mail
> had communicated nothing but interest in the issue before Justin began his
> tirades. I was doubly outraged when Justin's infantile behavior was rewarded
> with getting what he wanted from Michael: the censorship of the thread. But
> what really put me over the top was Michael's willingness to sit by without
> the slightest sign of disapproval while Charles Brown continued a thread that
> Michael had declared closed, using it as an opportunity to make further
> personal attacks. When I responded with frank language describing my feelings
> of what had transpired, Michael decided it was time to step in -- to issue a
> "final warning" ... to me. Clearly, I have no right to expect anything even
> remotely approaching evenhandedness from here on.
>
> This controversy has been the most contrived excuse for avoiding open and
> honest debate I have come across on a left listserv. On every other list
> where this matter has come up, either through my own posting or through
> Michael P's propensity to share every debate across the net, it has been
> discussed in a civil and honest fashion. An example of the type of responses
> on different lists are attached at the end of this e-mail. I learned
> something from those responses. On one list, a member of the National
> Committee of Solidarity confirmed the very thesis of mine that had
> purportedly been the basis of Justin's vituperative attacks. "To put it
> bluntly Solidarity's relationship to TDU and Labor Notes is no great secret,"
> he wrote. "This theme has popped up at many times and places especially on
> the internet and there is this kind of implied notion that Solidarity
> secretly and nefariously controls these organizations. Yes it is true that
> Solidarity members have played leading roles in both groups since their
> inception and probably will continue to. As a matter of principle though we
> do not set policy in these groups; we don't look on them as recruiting
> grounds or in any other way treat them as front organizations."
>
> I think it is unfortunate that matters have reached this end, but given that
> they have, it is time for me to depart.
>
> ******************************************************************************
>
> ***
> While I have often disagreed with Leo, and have politics that I'm sure he
> thinks are ten degrees left of folly, his point is well taken. I think of
> Solidarity as "coming out of" the Trotskyist tradition. For me, the "coming
> out of" is much more important than the word "Trotskyist", in the same way
> that, despite many independents who joined (Nathan), or others (myself), CoC
> "came out of" the Communist Party's split.
>
> I don't see this as red baiting. It is important to be on target. The old
> Mobilization for Survival (not the SMC to which Leo refers, which was very
> much run by the SWP), came "out of" the War Resisters League and part of the
> American Friends Service Committee - but how to "run" Mobe, or who to put on
> its leading committees, etc., NEVER came up at WRL meetings. Once Mobe began,
> it was truly independent - but it would have been pretty dishonest for WRL to
> pretend it didn't have a close, friendly relationship with it.
>
> And I think Labor Notes does damn good work and am very grateful for it.
>
> Fraternally,
> David [McReynolds]
>
> ******************************************************************************
>
> ***
> It interesting that the CP might support Hoffa out of antagonism toward TDU
> when Hoffa continually flirts with the GOP and Buchanan, and Carey was a much
> stronger supporter of the Dems. It goes against the CP's "support Democrats
> at all costs" political line.
>
> I think I heard at the time that the CP was internally divided over the IBT,
> with some of their trade union allies being Carey supporters and some being
> Hoffa supporters. The CP is not as "centralist" as it used to be. While
> direct and open criticicism as the CP leadership will get you kicked out,
> they are more tolerant of differences on other matters now, from what I've
> heard - probably trying to hang on to as much of their dwindling membership
> as they can. As opposed to the Trotskyist practice of splitting at the drop
> of a hat.
>
> Another time when the CP was at odds with most of the "progressives" in the
> labor movement was over the P-9 strike in 1986-87, when most lefties
> supported Local P-9 and the CP strongly supported the UFCW international
> leadership which put an end to the strike.
>
> In general, I believe socialist groups should avoid taking sides officially
> in internal trade union disputes. It usually doesn't help anyone. Socialist
> trade unionists as individual members of unions will of course take sides
> occasionally. The issues are not always clear-cut. The goal should be to
> support union democracy, solidarity of all labor, and organizing and
> mobiizing workers against capital and its right-wing allies. However, taking
> and enforcing a "line" position is generally counter-productive. Trade union
> politics are best left to the left trade unionists and their individual
> conscience.
>
> Andy English
>
> ******************************************************************************
>
> ***
> This question of openness is why Harrington at the founding convention of
> DSOC associated himself with the gay metaphor by saying "socialists have to
> come out of the closet."
>
> So far from socialists empowering themselves by "hiding in plain sight,"
> they weaken themselves. And note that even Bill Clinton is called a
> Communist by the Right, there's a popular bumper sticker to that effect.
>
> Remember that Dennis Drucker story from two decades back -- he was handing
> out literature in Woodside when he was approached by a suspicious woman from
> the regulars. "Who are you and what do you represent?" "I'm a democratic
> socialist," he replied. "That's all right -- so long as you aren't one of
> those goddam liberals!" she said.
>
> Liberals are in the closet these days. It's a sign of weakness, not of
> cleverness.
>
> Jim Chapin
>
> ******************************************************************************
>
> ***
> Leo Casey
> United Federation of Teachers
> 260 Park Avenue South
> New York, New York 10010-7272 (212-598-6869)
>
> Power concedes nothing without a demand.
> It never has, and it never will.
> If there is no struggle, there is no progress.
> Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet deprecate agitation are men who
> want crops without plowing the ground. They want rain without thunder and
> lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its waters.
>
>
> a weaker greenback would be a good thing, if it falls _slowly_.
>
> Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
>
> From - Tue Jul 17 19:56:15 2001
> Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Received: (qmail 18346 invoked from network); 17 Jul 2001 16:47:-- Frederick
>Douglass --
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
