Letters from Our Readers

Liked Our Article on Students Against Sweatshops

I would like to suggest that you initiate an exchange sub with the following publication:
NEW SOCIALIST,
Box 167, 253 College St.,
Toronto
M5T 1R5
Canada

Their web page is http://www.web. net/~newsoc.

A member of the New Socialist Group is presently [November 1999] in Vancouver speaking on Globalization and the Fight Against Sweatshops. Your article on Students Against Sweatshops in the Sept.-Oct. issue was very useful. We have photocopied it for distribution.

Socialist Challenge in Canada has fused with the New Socialist Group.

You may continue to use the old address:

Socialist Challenge,

Box 4955 MPO

Vancouver

V6B 4A6

In solidarity,

Ken H.
Vancouver, Canada

Wants Books About the Struggle in the Socialist Workers Party

I understand that your magazine descended from the Bulletin in Defense of Marxism and the Fourth Internationalist Tendency (FIT). I’m trying to find out if there is still a place or person that I can get pamphlets and other literature published by the FIT from.

Any help that you could provide in this matter would be most helpful and greatly appreciated.

Adam Ritscher,
Minneapolis, Minnesota

[For this literature, e-mail PAULLEBL@aol.com — The Editors.]

Liked Paul Le Blanc’s “Who’s Who on the U.S. Left”

It was with the greatest interest, since I am an “old-timer” now, that I read the Sept.-Oct. Labor Standard — and especially the partial survey. My impression is that “10,000” [people “on the left” in the U.S] is a wildly inflated figure. I will be deliriously happy to be proven wrong.

Just in case you don’t know about it, I’m enclosing a copy of [the four-page newspaper] New Unionist. I’m a longtime member of the NUP [New Union Party, “an independent grassroots organization supported by the contributions of its members and friends”; address: 1821 University Ave. W. Suite S-116, St. Paul MN 55104; phone (651) 646-5546; e-mail: nup@minn.net; web page: http://www1.minn.net/-nup]. I first glommed onto the New Unionist via the Hormel strike, and found it so refreshing that it was written in English, not jargon.

I did emerge from a Trotskyist background: when I was still in high school I was in the Correspondence group that preceded News and Letters. In the late ’60s, during my Berkeley period, I was in the Spartacist League — very tiresome.

I’m delighted to find a journal like Labor Standard in the Southwest.

In addition to the New Unionist, please be aware of the War Zone newsletter out of Decatur. This from Mike Griffin, 675 E. Hillshire, Decatur, Illinois 62521. He was very active in the Staley strike and lockout (and of course has been blacklisted). he and his wife, Jan, are virtually the only ones who have not retreated back into the woodwork. They would doubtless be uncomfortable calling themselves “Socialist” — but the analysis of the union movement is absolutely exemplary.

Here’s a bit [of a donation] for the next issue; looking forward to it.

Keep up the good work,

Joanne Forman,
Taos, New Mexico

Editors’ Reply: Thanks to Joanne Forman for her letter and donation, but we should point out that we’re not just in the Southwest. While our editorial and business address is Tucson, our supporters and distributors are all over the country. Perhaps we should print a listing of local LS contacts in each issue.

Liked Joe Auciello’s Article on “Fatherland or Mother Earth”

I have not met you, although we both lived in the Boston area for some years. After having been expelled from the Socialist Workers Party (from the New Orleans branch) it took me until the late ‘80s to reconnect with Frank Lovell and Bulletin in Defense of Marxism [of which Labor Standard is the continuation]. I had to leave Boston for Alabama before I had a chance to talk with BIDOM supporters there.

Your review of Michael Löwy’s Fatherland or Mother Earth is something I will recommend to Bogdan Denitch in my next letter to him, if he replies to my last (which I attach below).

With the “death” of Yugoslavia we are not back to what Trotsky wrote about in 1912–13 [see Leon Trotsky, The Balkan Wars]. Nearly a century has gone by, and even in the last decade, capitalism has not yet really begun to reverse what began in Russia in October 1917.

Important sections of the economies in Russia and Eastern Europe, not to mention China, Vietnam, Korea, and Cuba are still publicly owned (although controlled by privileged bureaucracies ready to sell off public property for their own private gain). The attitude of the masses in these countries, according to a series of National Public Radio reports I heard the first week of November, is hostile to capitalism and prefers public ownership. This indicates bad news in store for the imperialists.

What the moneybags fear is another Cuban revolution. Students of Che Guevara’s efforts in the Congo have apparently pushed the capitalists back in Central Africa. And certainly the threat of another Cuba in Albania led to Italian and NATO involvement there. In Chechnya and Dagestan the danger of local, popular control of oil and gas resources has driven the Yeltsin authorities to atrocities beyond possibilities to imagine, even in these bloodthirsty times. Meanwhile, the Indonesian revolution has recommenced after 35 years. And that is not just some small country in Africa or Europe. The desire to block armed struggle in East Timor, possibly leading to independence and popular control of natural resources, has moved the Australian capitalists to intervene and support establishment of a UN protectorate there.

The importance of the “national question” is front and center. If you recall, the revolution in Cuba began as a struggle against American imperialism — a fight for Cuban dignity and respect. The nationalism of oppressed peoples is a very positive drive. The opposite is true of the “patriotism” or chauvinism of oppressor nations, of imperialist governments. This we have to make clear.

My letter to Bogdan Denitch follows:

I found your book Ethnic Nationalism: The Tragic Death of Yugoslavia last spring at the University of Alabama library. It surprised me to find a book written by a socialist and participant in the struggle to prevent the destruction of that country. It taught me a great deal about what has been happening in Yugoslavia in the past fifty years. You have an internationalist perspective which looks forward to a Balkan Federation. You imply that the states in this federation should be led by the working class and its allies.

Your work does indicate clearly the relevance of the problems in the former Yugoslavia to those in almost every corner of the world, including the advanced industrial countries and pointedly the United States.

In a short book of this kind you cannot be expected to go into such an important question in exhaustive detail, but I do commend your attempt.

Our Marxist tradition points out the historically progressive features of capitalism, which you seem to blur when you refer to the Communist Manifesto. I hope you have read E.P. Thompson’s Making of the British Working Class, where he points out how much English workers, and oppressed peoples all over the world, took inspiration form the French revolution of 1789.

You downgrade Lenin’s completely correct arguments in his polemics against Rosa Luxemburg on the national question, which Leon Trotsky so strongly seconded. You are absolutely right in criticizing the limits of ethnicity in defining nationality. Patriotism and great-power chauvinism are detestable, and it is to your credit to have fought these diseases in Yugoslavia and in the United States.

In my view, one must vigorously defend the rights of oppressed nationalities, their right of self-determination even to the point of separation, particularly if one is a member of the oppressor nation. For example, a U.S. citizen must defend the rights of the aboriginal people, African Americans, Latin Americans, and the foreign-born. Not to do so is an outright betrayal of one’s proletarian international duty.

It seems to me that your disappointment in the failure of the UN to intervene in the former Yugoslavia is misdirected. Remember what happened in Korea, the Congo, Somalia, and elsewhere. Western intervention resulted in a fiasco in Croatia and Bosnia, which you yourself mention.

You should also know better than to urge the International Monetary Fund and World Bank to “aid” Eastern Europe, the former USSR, or any third world (neo-colonial) country. The imperialists dominate the global economy. They cannot be reformed, only overthrown, as a scientific analysis shows.

The revolutions of 1848, the Paris Commune of 1871, the Russian revolution of 1917, the attacks on the working class from Mussolini through Hitler, and the trillions of dollars spent on the Cold War — all this indicates that the capitalists will go to any lengths to keep their power.

To be sure, the Stalinists and reformist socialists have been complicit in capitalist suppression of working class struggles, acting as transmitters of bourgeois ideas to mislead workers.

We must explain these betrayals, galvanize the wage workers and their allies throughout the world to seize the commanding heights of the economy, to socialize the means of production. To do this, workers must hold the power in at least several advanced countries.

In the latter part of your chapter “Nationalism, Globalism, and Democracy” your words are almost the same as mine. Our victory in this process will be sooner, not later, and I welcome further contributions by you toward laying bare the dynamics of this life-and-death struggle.

Alan Sawyer,
Greensboro, Alabama

Correction on Sylvia Ageloff

In your obituary on Morris Lewit, a pioneer of the American revolutionary socialist movement (Labor Standard, July-August 1999), there is a phrase that comes out of nowhere, makes no sense, and is flat-out wrong.

You quote Lewit about the AWP (American Workers Party) and then — unrelated to Lewit, the history of the AWP, or anything relevant — the authors insert a statement that an AWP member, Sylvia Ageloff, was introduced to “a romantic young man named Ramon Mercader during a trip to Europe (but unknown to her, he was a Stalinist agent under orders to assassinate Trotsky). She brought her murderous lover to meet her political hero in Mexico and introduced him into the Trotsky household” (p. 62).

I have no idea what these sentences of the authors (not Lewit’s) have to do with Morris Lewit’s life, but I do know that the statement is wrong and false: Sylvia Ageloff (1910–1995) was my aunt.

I know how Sylvia felt for the rest of her life, living with the horror that resulted from her being tricked and used by Leon Trotsky’s assassin: she never publicly discussed the issue and refused all interviews with comrades, academics, or reporters on the subject. Yet no one in the Trotskyist movement (especially Natalya [Trotsky’s widow]) was anything but supportive, or ever accused her of what you did.

The authors easily could have consulted the foremost authority on Trotsky’s life, Isaac Deutscher, whose 3-volume biography is the most widely quoted and reliable history of Trotsky. Whereas your authors state that Sylvia “introduced him [Mercader] into the Trotsky household,” the truth as reported by Deutscher is that “Sylvia was scrupulous enough never to bring ‘Jacson’ [Mercader] into Trotsky’s home — she even told Trotsky that as her husband had come to Mexico on a false passport, his visit might needlessly embarrass Trotsky.” (The Prophet Outcast, New York, 1963, p. 485.)

Although obviously Sylvia was duped and tricked, she never introduced Mercader [who used the alias “Jacson”] to Trotsky, never “brought him” to Mexico (he was there long before she arrived), never introduced him into the household, and never thought that he had any interest in politics. Being around Sylvia, Mercader had ingratiated himself with Alfred and Marguerite Rosmer (older comrades from France who lived with Trotsky and his wife, Natalya). Mercader gave the Rosmers rides and performed small favors. They invited Mercader into the Trotsky house. The Rosmers, of course, were also tricked by Moscow’s well-trained assassin.

It is incomprehensible why a lengthy (9¼ page) obituary of someone who had absolutely nothing to do with my aunt (except that they were members, along with many hundreds of others, of the same organization), would include this wrong and mean-spirited comment.

Eric Poulos
Brooklyn, New York

Paul Le Blanc replies: In the lengthy article about Morris Lewit’s life, a considerable amount of material was offered to give a sense of Morris’s perspectives on the history of U.S. Trotskyism, including his brief comments about Sylvia Ageloff. What was written in the article on the link beween this idealistic young revolutionary and the death of Trotsky simply follows the account that Morris gave in an hour-and-a-half  taped  interview with me. I don’t think these brief comments were meant to be mean-spirited. That was not the kind of person Morris was. Rather, he seemed to be reflecting on some of the ironies and tragedies that are part of the history of our movement, and of life itself. I very much appreciate Eric’s clarification of the factual details and regret any pain that may have been caused by the passage in question.

Disagrees on Boston Rail Workers and Privatization

This letter is the result of my having read your article, “Boston Rail Workers Fight Privatization,” which appears in Volume 1, No. 4 of Labor Standard. There are a number of minor points I could take issue with, but I’ll focus only on what I would classify as major “problems” in the article. The biggest flaw, if you will, is the suggestion that there is a fightback taking place. While there is a strong sentiment among the best of the workers facing the chopping block for a fightback, and as much as we’d all like to see one, sadly, there is no real fightback as of this date.

Your article goes into great detail in describing what has taken place, with the union bureaucracy in the lead, namely, lobbying Democratic Party politicians to please help the poor workers against the bad, evil corporations. That in a nutshell is all that has been done this far, to “fight” the privatization.

The videotapes you report on in your article show the workers at risk doing the only thing they’ve done so far, namely testifying before legislative panels and subcommittees about their plight. I’m sorry, but that is not fighting back. If they begin to do what they say they want to do — such as go on strike — well, that’s a much different kettle of fish.

With our old friend Charlie Moneypenny as their point man, the union bureaucrats have done everything in their power to derail any and all genuine fightback proposals from the ranks, deflecting them into the lobbying-legalistic sinkhole, oriented toward lawyers and politicians, with not much success as of today.

Thus far the most advanced workers have been swiftly distracted, deflected, choose any word you’d like, from following through on their instincts to “shut the thing down,” into the morass of lobbying and publicity stunts by Moneypenny et al, designed specifically to be a substitute for a real fightback. The workers may go home pissed-off and disgruntled, but they go home, and they don’t fight back.

The first “really big” event since the rally several months ago, which was really nothing more than a Democratic Party caucus meeting, was scheduled for Monday, November 29. A “Moonlight March” was “secretly” being organized. The plan was to have workers travel out to Hudson, Massachusetts, and picket Governor Celluci’s house. This is the extent to which the “fightback” has advanced.

I should point out that just a tad over a year ago Brother Moneypenny and his band of merry pranksters were holding signs for, and advocating electoral support for, the same Paul Cellucci in his campaign to be reelected governor of Massachusetts. Now, the governor is the antiunion, antichrist of Moneypenny’s latest production.

Your article also makes reference to “Commuter Rail Workers United” as, “an alliance of rail unions at Amtrak headed by” Brother Moneypenny. CRWU is little more than a front composed of Moneypenny and a handful of local union bureaucrats from several, not all, the unions at Amtrak. They hold meetings behind closed doors, and once they have agreement on what they will do next, they then invite “the workers” to an “open, democratic” meeting where they can vent their spleens and get their marching orders from the “leaders.”

CRWU is a warmed-over rehash of Amtrak Workers United, which functioned the same way, orchestrated by the same clique at the helm now, with Moneypenny steering the ship.

An equal partner in these activities with Charlie is Kevin Lydon, a long time Amtrak manager and old Moneypenny friend and ally. They consult on all things related to the “fightback.” Kevin is my cousin; I know him well. Charlie and I go way back as well; we started working together [on the railroad in Boston] almost 30 years ago. His primary function in the TWU [Transit Workers Union] is that of Legislative Representative for the union nationally. He now lives in D.C., where the union is headquartered. He services the Washington politicians on behalf of his organization. He will never lead a fight back from there!

Your article closes with the possibility of the workers here “talking French” to the bosses. They won’t if Moneypenny has anything to do with it. When word of the privatization finally hit home it was “leaked” to the press that although four prospective bidders for the mechanical contract had been identified, only two were considered serious finalists. The first was a partnership involving Bombardier Inc. of Québec, the other was headed up by GEC Alstom of Paris, France. At that time Moneypenny went to the press campaigning about “French and Canadian workers trying to weasel in and steal jobs from Americans.” This guy represents the worst at the upper levels of the AFL-CIO. He is a racist to the marrow of his bones.

Anyone who seriously attempts to offer an alternative to the bureaucracy is at best dismissed, at worst attacked by Moneypenny and his gang. If we raise something, we are red baited. If a “non-Commie” proposes something, he or she is unrealistic or not playing with a full deck. You are either in line with Moneypenny or you’re “different.” Even workers who know the real deal are afraid to speak up out of legitimate fears of being ostracized by their “friends.” It ain’t pretty.

The situation isn’t hopeless; the patient is still breathing. But he’s in intensive care. Don’t equate the voices of angry workers testifying before a horseshit panel of legislators up on Beacon Hill with a fight.

More on the Moonlight March. It was supposed to begin on Monday, November 29, on the steps in front of the State House, featuring a number of speeches by the Moneypenny machine as “the workers” return blank employment applications from Bay State Transit. Workers are being told that “we” are waiting for a response from the state legislature, and U.S. Secretary of Labor Alexis Herman. That is the latest from fightback central.

I’ve gone on too long, but I felt it important that your readers have more background information on the situation here on the railroad in Boston. I hope you will accept this as a friendly contribution to a discussion.

Art LeClair
Ipswich, Massachusetts

George Saunders replies: Of course Art has been on the scene at Amtrak for many years. The main source for my article has not worked at Amtrak as long. Differences in assessing a situation and in proposed tactics for action are inevitable and normal.

This is a local struggle — like so many others — but it has been making the news. There was enough of a protest against this privatization attempt(even if the protest was controlled and muted by Moneypenny and Co.) to get into the Boston Globe repeatedly, and the video produced by the Boston City Council is public information. I don’t think it hurts to publicize the video more widely. The testimony of the workers in that video – including women, Blacks, Latinos, and disabled — helps illustrate what a crime it is to destroy union jobs that pay well, with people performing a vital service, doing an excellent job of running this big operation, and feeling good about their lives as a result.

From the standpoint of our magazine, I feel we need to illustrate concretely what a crime it is when perfectly fine government operations are turned over to the privateers. This is a worldwide trend, as Dave Riehle has illustrated in the case of the global water cartel that is trying to worm its way into St. Paul, Minnesota. (See Labor Standard, Nos. 4 and 5.) Dave pointed out what that cartel did to Sydney, Australia, for example. (Another water cartel has just provoked a general strike and crisis in Bolivia by privatization and raising water rates.)

That’s No. 1, the crime of privatization. Second is the question of tactics, how to effectively fight this particular variation of capitalist oppression and exploitation. As I understand it, the main source of our article, an active unionist at Amtrak, was trying to push further what the union bureaucracy (led by Moneypenny), in alliance with Amtrak management, was doing by way of half-hearted protest against this crime. I understand that the union ranks have remained solid, that no one has signed up to work for the privatized company, and that as a result, that company’s contract is now in question. You say that the ranks aren’t willing to go farther, but at least they have stuck together and refused to work for the privateers.