Re: [Marxism] Misunderstanding Solidarity Re: ISO's conference.

[Sam B <sam.b.ann.arbor@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 11:01 PM, Andrew Pollack <acpollack2@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> The ATC article by Henry Phillips confirms my point. It has the same
> tone as the front-page article in Labor Notes right after Carey's
> victimization by the government: too bad, so sad, you got caught, bye
> bye. I'll never forget being shocked at that article's tone.
> Not one iota of an awareness that Carey needed to be defended.

But many people, including the reform movement in the Teamsters
itself, took this very same stance.

As the ISO's paper wrote on October 19, 2001:

"Even Teamsters for a Democratic Union, the reform caucus that backed
Carey, refused to defend him. Nor did Tom Leedham, the [...] reform
candidate for Teamster president, take up the defense of Carey. Some
reform leaders argued that abandoning Carey was the only way to
protect the reform movement from the taint of scandal."

<http://socialistworker.org/2001/380/380_11_Carey.shtml>

________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: 
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40archives.econ.utah.edu