Re: Re: Re: Re: If Open and Frank Discussion Is Red-Baiting...

[Michael Perelman <michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Please, Justin, I thought that my last message was enough to put a stop to
this.  Leo had not responded, and I hope he will have the courtesy not to.
Let's put this to rest.

On Sun, Jul 15, 2001 at 04:20:47AM -0000, Justin Schwartz wrote:
>
> 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 <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
> >
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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