From: Michael Perelman <michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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: LeoCasey@xxxxxxx
> >Reply-To: pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >To: <pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >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 michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx