Re: marxism-digest V1 #3514

["Mike Friedman" <mikedf@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Yes, members, sections of the rank and file, the base of these parties
continued to wage heroic struggles, in spite of their leadership. The same
happened in the Spanish Civil War. But, the policies of the CPs and their
leaderships was quite clear.

Mike Friedman
> >
> I think it would be hard to tell Josette Audin, whose husband and
> comrade in the French Communist Party was tortured to death and
> disappeared because he was trying to defend the NLF against police
> terror, that her husband was a political criminal becuase he was following
> the policies of the French Communist Party.
>
> Or tell the children, lovers, comrades of the 6 members of the PCF who
> were beaten to death by the cops in a metro station because they were
> carrying pro-NFL banners, in a fight so ferocious that it left the ceiling
> splattered with blood, that these six people, convinced and dedicated
> members of the PCF, were political criminals.
>
> It is important to point out the political mistakes and betrayals of the
left
> in Europe and the USA but I think it is important to do it in a way that
> does not deprecate the sacrifices and risks of the militants in these
> organizations.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 22:49:28 -0500 (CDT)
> From: jenyan1 <jenyan1@xxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: An letter to Against the Current
>
> On Thu, 17 May 2001, Louis Proyect wrote:
>
> >
> > Jared, you should take the trouble to study up on Zimbabwe. You are
taking
> > one sentence out of context. Mugabe has spent 15 years bending over
> > backwards to keep the World Bank and the IMF placated. The only reason
he
> > is kicking up dust with the MDC today is to hold on to power. It is
> > completely demagogic. The Marxist left has no business solidarizing
itself
> > with Mugabe, nor Thabo Mbeki for that matter. We should be looking out
for
> > the next Thomas Sankara, not these bums.
> >
> Where Mugabe has bent over backwards, the MDC is going to assume a
> horizontal posture.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 00:09:31 -0400
> From: Les Schaffer <schaffer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: the history of the IS (US)
>
> [ forwarded from Ravi Malhotra <malhotra@xxxxxxxx> ]
>
> Hi.  I read your post on Lou's web site. I am not on the list but read
> it and have met Lou.  I wanted to thank you as I have been trying to
> figure out for many years (nearly a decade!) why the IS and Workers
> Power split (although I thought it was in 1977, the same year as the
> ISO split).  Yours if the first articulate account. Even long time
> Soli members were not able to tell me. I also agree with you about the
> super high quality of the first series of ATC, although I like the
> second series as well.  I wish I could buy all the issues of the first
> series.  I don't suppose you knew where I could?  The only thing I
> have read (aside from exclusions like the strange evolution of the LRP
> out of the RSL) in variance with your account is I thought the
> expulsion/split/whatever of the ISO in 1977 *in part* precipitated, in
> addition to the reasons you give, the tensions between Workers Power
> and the IS.  Wasn't Mike Davis in Workers Power?  It's too bad he
> didn't join Solidarity. And I agree with you on the importance of CLR
> James.
>
> I am a Canadian in the NDP (but pretty alienated from the party)
>
> Anyway, thanks for the post.
>
> Ravi
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 23:10:10 -0500 (CDT)
> From: jenyan1 <jenyan1@xxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: French in Algeria: Inhumanity exposed
>
> Hi,
> The mistake here is my own.  I had been lead to believe that the line of
> the PCF leadership was that the question of Algeria was to be resolved
> not by independence but within the the French state. I have obviously had
> a superficial and incomplete reading of this issue, which showed in my
> reply to your initial mail. Furthermore, it could not have been further
> from my intention to criticise the courageous rank and file members you
> mentioned in your last mail, and of whom I was not even aware.
> My apologies.
> John Enyang
>
> >
> > I think it would be hard to tell Josette Audin, whose husband and
> > comrade in the French Communist Party was tortured to death and
> > disappeared because he was trying to defend the NLF against police
> > terror, that her husband was a political criminal becuase he was
following
> > the policies of the French Communist Party.
> >
> > Or tell the children, lovers, comrades of the 6 members of the PCF who
> > were beaten to death by the cops in a metro station because they were
> > carrying pro-NFL banners, in a fight so ferocious that it left the
ceiling
> > splattered with blood, that these six people, convinced and dedicated
> > members of the PCF, were political criminals.
> >
> > It is important to point out the political mistakes and betrayals of the
left
> > in Europe and the USA but I think it is important to do it in a way that
> > does not deprecate the sacrifices and risks of the militants in these
> > organizations.
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 12:48:53 +0800
> From: Mark Munsterhjelm <gustav88@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Ethnocentrism in Taiwan VP Aboriginal rights remarks
>
> "Aboriginals in Taiwan are from abroad like all the other immigrants
> to the island," Lu said. "We should learn to share this land together
> ? racial conflicts should be avoided."
>
>
> Source: Taipei Times, May 18, 2001
>
> Title:
> Critics object to Lu's remarks on
> Aboriginal rights
>
> AUTONOMY: The vice president spoke out for Aboriginal rights
> yesterday but critics said her comments still reflected what they
> call Han ethnocentrism
> By Chuang Chi-ting
> STAFF REPORTER
>
> Vice President Annette Lu (§f¨q½¬) spoke out for Aboriginal rights at
> a public hearing held by the human rights advisory committee to the
> president yesterday, but participants said they were surprised at
> hints of ethnocentrism in her remarks.
>
> Such a mentality, they said, is considered a major obstacle to
> Aboriginals' promotion of self-determination through autonomy,
> which was the subject of yesterday's hearing. Some scholars and
> Aboriginals present requested autonomy with sovereignty equal to
> the state government rather than in the form of decentralization.
>
> "Aboriginals in Taiwan are from abroad like all the other immigrants
> to the island," Lu said. "We should learn to share this land together
> ? racial conflicts should be avoided."
>
> "The fact that Aboriginals came to the island much earlier than Han
> Chinese is overlooked. They could have lived a happy life with the
> right to self-government were it not for colonial intrusion," said Shih
> Cheng-feng (¬I¥¿¾W), associate professor of public administration
> from Tamkang University.
>
> Lu said that she supports promoting indigenous peoples' dignity.
> "After an athletic event I held for Aboriginals from all over the
> island, the chiefs came to me with tears in their eyes and almost
> knelt down in appreciation for the event which made them feel so
> proud," Lu said.
>
> Shih and others, though recognizing the DPP government's efforts in
> promoting indigenous autonomy, said Lu's remark reveals how Han
> ethnocentrism still prevails in society. "She is more progressive
> than others ? yet she still showed the belief that people should
> worship the sovereignty of the Han regime," they said.
>
> President Chen Shui-bian (³¯¤ô«ó) promised autonomy for
> Aboriginals by signing the New Partnership Between Aboriginals
> and the Government of Taiwan when he was a DPP presidential
> candidate. Promoting such autonomy is also part of in the DPP's
> party platform.
>
> Chen's 1999 endorsement of "the new partnership" defines
> Aboriginal relations with the central government as being "nation-
> to-nation" in nature and also recognizes their natural sovereignty.
>
> Yet currently the draft of the Indigenous Peoples Autonomy Law is
> based on Constitutional provisions that guarantee racial equality.
> The draft, therefore, recognizes the supreme sovereignty of the
> state government rather than that of indigenous peoples as
> recognized by many in the international community.
>
> Representatives at the hearing yesterday requested genuine
> recognition of sovereignty rather than decentralization of the
> government in the implementation of autonomy to ensure
> self-governing.
>
>
> URL=[http://www.taipeitimes.com/news/2001/05/18/story/0000086191]
>
>
>
> Copyright © 1999-2001 The Taipei Times. All rights reserved.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 15:30:01 +1000
> From: "Alan Bradley" <abradley1@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: re: To Alan was Re: An letter to Against the Current
>
> From: Gary Maclennan
> > What is making you uncomfortable is the implication, unintended by Mine
I
> > am suspect, that your party was wrong in East Timor.  You yourself
> > disagreed with the organisation but I  suppose now in the Zinovievest
> > manner you have to defend he party line.  Of course within the logic of
> > Zinovievism those who criticise the party are sectarians.
>
> I am not a member of the DSP at the moment.  I have no intention of
> rejoining.
>
> > Despite your protestations with each passing day it becomes clear that
it
> > was a mistake to support imperialist intervention in East Timor.
>
> Sorry?  What do you mean?
>
> I opposed the intervention initially.  I was totally wrong.  I made this
> mistake because of the influence of the "anti-imperialists" on this list.
>
> Alan Bradley
> abradley1@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 21:57:07 +0200
> From: Grinker <grinker@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: An letter to Against the Current
>
> Jared:
> > >Every time someone attacks Imperial policy - e.g., in Zimbabwe, or
> > >Philippines, Timor or Yugoslavia - we are told: if you are right how
come
> > >all the local lefties are backing (whoever is the choice of the
> Imperialists.)
>
> Jared is right.  The argument of e.g. most of the left in South Africa is
> that, as the MDC supports the imposition of western sanctions, so should
we.
>
> Lou:
> > The left should not set itself up to be cheerleaders. The MDC in
Zimbabwe
> > is deeply flawed by reformist elements. But we should have no illusions
> > about Mugabe:
>
> True.  But if he occasionally - for whatever reason - takes a stand
against
> imperialism (and that includes opposing the intervention of the South
> African variety) then that should be supported. There is no third position
> when it comes to taking sides in a conflict between Mugabe and an
> imperialist power. With all the anti-Mugabe propaganda floating around
> whatever we say is hardly likely to create illusions in Mugabe's
opportunist
> politics.
>
> I do however think there is some point in being careful to pose arguments
> against intervention in language which doesn't put people off from the
> start.
>
> ***
>
> > Jared:
> > > The problem with the MDC is that it is linked to the USA
>
> Macdonald:
> > One wouldn't think so reading the "Socialist Review" from the British
> >Section of Cliffism. I spent the whole article wondering if they would
> mention this
> >`detail'. They didn't. While I am quite suspicious of what we hear all
the
> time as
> >"war veterans", I am a hell of a lot more suspicious of the NYTimes, etc.
> and
> >why they deem it necessary for us to hate these people. The Cliffite
> thinkers would
> >have me believe the MDC is an organisation of workers, and that this is
> where
> >radicals *automatically* are.
> >
> > It seems the waters are much muddier, and that one can start an
> understanding of the
> > dynamics here better through following the money. This magazine would
have
> me >elieve that because their are people who believe in socialism on the
> bottom of
> >the MDC that this will reverberate through the entire party. Of course,
> imperial
> >motives for funding the *neo-liberal* MDC are not mentioned.
>
> The "Cliffites" have one entrist MP in the MDC who is about to be booted
out
> because he has - against the general MDC line - supported Mugabe's recent
> radical anti-imperialist rhetoric.
>
> It is of course quite possible for the MDC to be backed by the west and
have
> "sepoy" politics while it maintains a largely working class base.  Its
> leadership even comes from the labour movement bureaucracy. The
cohabitation
> of workers and pro-western leaders is hardly surprising in a context of
the
> general
> collapse of old-style radical nationalist politics.
>
> ***
>
> >Lou:
> > Jared, you should take the trouble to study up on Zimbabwe. You are
taking
> > one sentence out of context. Mugabe has spent 15 years bending over
> > backwards to keep the World Bank and the IMF placated. The only reason
he
> > is kicking up dust with the MDC today is to hold on to power. It is
> > completely demagogic.
>
> Undoubtedly true.  But Jared is essentially right. If it does come to a
real
> crunch situation  e.g. if sanctions (nothing else than war by other means)
> are imposed, or there is some other form of western intervention,
solidarity
> with Zimbabwe is definitely required.  It is not the business of a
> principled left to interrogate the politics of  nationalist leaders in
> countries under active threat from the west while the last remnants of
their
> sovereignty are in the process of being whittled away.  Support in such
> cases must surely be unconditional.
>
> >The Marxist left has no business solidarizing itself with Mugabe, nor
Thabo
> Mbeki for >that matter. We should be looking out for the next Thomas
> Sankara, not these bums.
>
> Defending Zimbabwe doesn't have to mean political identification with
> Mugabe - practical opposition to all forms of western intervention is what
> is needed. While we're looking out for another Sankara, we can't just sit
on
> our hands while Zim is domesticated (further).
>
> Russell
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 21:32:04 +1000
> From: "Alan Bradley" <abradley1@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: An letter to Against the Current
>
> From: Borba100@xxxxxxx
> In a message dated 5/17/01 9:23:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> abradley1@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:
> <<
>  The problem with "anti-imperialist" New York Times leftists i >>
>
> > ???
> >
> > Is that someone who reads the New York Times?  Who lives in New York? Or
> > who exposes its lies on Emperor's Clothes?
>
> By that I mean leftists who form a vague impression of a situation from
the
> bourgeois media, build an elaborate schema around this vague impression,
and
> start anathematising people who don't appreciate their brilliance.
>
> The New York Times was just an example.
>
> An example of the kind of thing I am talking about is your analysis of the
> Philippines situation, where you have built quite a schema around what
> appears to be very little factual content.
>
> Alan Bradley
> abradley1@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 06:13:23 -0600 (MDT)
> From: ermadog@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Strike actions in Europe
>
> On Thu, 17 May 2001, Johannes Schneider wrote:
>
> > General strike brings Greece to standstill
> > Greece has come to a standstill as the second general strike in under a
> > month has taken hold across the country.
> > Protests at government proposals to overhaul the pensions system have
> > paralysed public transport, business and the civil service.
> > Athens' usually jammed streets emptied as buses, taxis, trolley buses
and
> > the metro shut down.
> > Full text:
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/europe/newsid_1335000/1335820.stm
>
> <snip>
>
> Thanks!
>
> Keep this stuff coming! For a second there, I thought the revolution was
> starting; but, then, I realized that I just don't ever see this much
> international labour news together in one place.
>
> Joan Cameron
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 09:17:13 -0400
> From: jonathan flanders <jon_flanders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: UP RR, "Common Employees" and Working Women
>
> - -----Original Message-----
> From: Jackie Lynn Fitzgerald
> Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2001 10:39 PM
> To: webmaster@xxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [Fwd: Unfair Working Condtions]
>
> Dear RD Jones,
>
> I'm sending you an email that I composed today to *****.  Please
> excuse the mispellings and improper punctuations.  If I have ever had a
> calling in life, I think it is on this issue.  I feel that their is no
> distinction between the company and the unions that are suppose to
> represent us.  I have sent this letter to every railroader who I have an
> email address for.  Please send me your thoughts.
>
> Jackie Fitzgerald
> Trainman   UP
> Hinkle, OR
>
>
>
> Jackie Lynn Fitzgerald wrote:
>
>  Mr. ******,
>
>  I have some growing concerns about the term "common employee" that
> Union Pacific Railroad has decided to label it's new hires.
>
> A common employee, in latent terms, is an employee who can be
> relocated  basically anywhere in the system at the employee's own expense.
> This
> is  not only an unfair labor practice, but a term that was never agreed
> upon by any of the new hires. Union Pacific Railroad has shifted operating
> costs on to the employee, and what it really sad about it, it's the
> lowest paid guys in the system.
>
> At 85%, I make $126.00 a shift.  I am already working 70 miles away
> from the town where I hired out of, the town I will eventually be forced
to
> work from.  That is 140 miles round trip everyday.  I am getting close
> to being cut off at Hinkle. According to the latest hub interpretation,
>
> I must go wherever my seniority will allow me to hold.  Just where
> exactly does my seniority district cover?  Sandpoint, Idaho is quite a
> little jaunt from La Grande, OR.  By classifying me as a common
> employee, I can be forced to Sandpoint at my own expense.  I would be
> more than happy to work in Sandpoint if needed, however, NOT AT MY OWN
> EXPENSE.  I don't work for free.  Union Pacific Railroad has forced
> their operating costs on the new employees and this is unfair.
>
> After my $126.00 gets sliced and diced, how much money do you think I
> get to keep in my pocket?  Subtract $40.00 a night for a hotel room,
> meals, and transportation costs.  That probably brings me down to
> $20.00 a day for wages.  I do not know of any company who does not pay
> their
> employees for dislocation costs including  mileage, lodging, and per
> diem.  Believe me, the company knows what they are getting away with,
> it's highway robbery.  Do you know how many cars a railroader goes
> through during his career?  Do you understand the risks we take
> everyday when we are forced to drive outside of our home terminals?
>
> My father retired as an engineer from UP, and he thinks that these
> working conditions are inhumane.  His next response was that we have
> no union representation anymore, because our union should have never
> agreed to such conditions.  I think prettly low of Union Pacific for
> forcing
> it's employees to adhere to such unfair labor practices.
>
> We have employees who were called back to work from across the United
> States, only to come back for about a weeks worth of work.  They have
> been denied TPA, and are  being forced to relocate, yet again, at
> their own expense.  But wait, it gets even better.  Now they get to go
> somewhere and bump someone off their own turf, so that the bumped
> individual  can collect their TPA.    Do you really thing this is
> worth $20.00 a day?  Railroad unemployment pays more than $20.00 a day. Do
> you really think these cut off inviduals are in any position to relocate
> at their own expense?  Should they take their families?  What happens if
> they move up to Sandpoint and then get cut off because business
> slowed?
>
> Are you aware of what has been happening when our people must bump
> onto another location?  The disgruntled, bumped employees have been
> slashing our tires?  This is absolutely rediculuous.
>
> This is not only an unfair labor practice, it is a crime.  The only
> compensation we get is from our taxes, and then, it is only a
> percentage.  We can't wait till the end of the year to recover from
> our dislocation expenses, we need the money now.  Is it really fair to use
> our tax dollars to fund Union Pacific's operating costs?  I think not.
> I wonder what the IRS would think about this?  It's nothing more than
> big business taking it out on the little guy.
>
> We have sought legal representation to assist us in our labor dispute.
> As a designated representative, you should be helping us with this
> issue.  Some of the old heads don't seem to care, because they didn't
> hire out under these conditions, and they are afforded all of the
> protections under the sun.  They are not forced to these places, they
> get to borrow out.
>
> When you were born, you were protected under the rights of the US
> Constitution.  Unfortunately, our union only takes care of those
> employed and future employees don't even count.  Well, future
> employees are going to be running the railroads someday, and they need to
> be
> guaranteed all of the same rights.   Divided we stand, and divided we
> are falling.
>
> Our union officials position on these issues is basically that we are
> a grain of sand on a never ending beach.  I am not a quitter, and
> basically the railroad has created such hardships on the new hires
> that they just want us to quit, so they can hire new employees with yet,
> even less rights and less pay.  As a woman working for the railroad, are
> numbers are too low, and these type of working conditions are making
> our numbers even lower.  The railroad has been abolishing jobs that are
> primarily held by women and hiring contract employees who work for
> minimum wage with no benefits.  It is no secret.  It's time to start
> bargaining for our rights.
>
> If our union can't work with us on these important issues, we will be
> forced to take our issues to a national level.  Press coverage is
> looking pretty good right now.
>
> I would like to hear some feedback on these issues, in the meantime, I
> will be getting the message out to as many railroaders as I possibly
> can.
>
>  Jackie Fitzgerald
>  Trainman
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of marxism-digest V1 #3514
> ******************************
>
>