Documents menu

Exchanges regarding the WFTU document

On the Labor-L, 28 February to 1 March 2001

In a message dated 2/28/1 12:05:57 PM, CharlesB@CNCL.CI.DETROIT.MI.US writes:

<<The organization's primary aims are to:>>

Shouldn't the list be headed by, "The wealth and continued tenure of the organization's leaders"?

How long has each of the named leaders "served" the organization and what is the annual compensation, including "expenses" and benefits of each named leader?

I've never believed that holding a responsible position in the international (or national) labour arena required a vow of poverty but, on the other hand, neither should it mean wealth that those sitting opposite would envy.

I have no desire to engage in a lengthy dialogue on these questions, simply because I believe there is nothing of substance or interest to dialogue about. My e-mail of yesterday was designed to simply note -- in the face of the predictible personal attacks on Peter from the usual quarters -- that many of us who read these e-mails agreed with him.

There are certain political realities which seem obvious to all but a few on this list. They are:

1. The Cold War is over. One side -- the West -- won; the other side -- the East -- lost.

2. The East lost because "actually existing socialism" or "Communism" or "Stalinism" or whatever else you care to call the nature of the political regimes there collapsed, failed of its own internal contradictions. It was not invaded; it fell apart from within.

3. The manner and pace of the collapse of the East made it crystal clear that the political regimes in power there had no meaningful support among their working people.

4. The moral and political corruption of these regimes was evident long before they collapsed, and to all who allowed their eyes to see what was before them. In the face of the millions of lives they claimed, from the top political leadership of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union to the ordinary worker and peasant, in the context of decades of political repression and denial of elementary human and democratic rights, it is simply preposterous to claim that the legacy of Stalin [and by implication, the East] revolves around "his" [ghost written] book on linguistics, or "his" role [having decimated the leadership ranks of the Red Army] in World War II.

Maybe some other folks, perhaps even Peter, want to spend time debating these issues. Not me. For my part, whatever time and energy I have will be much better spent working on reconstructing a mass democratic left out of the ashes of Communism.

Leo Casey
United Federation of Teachers
260 Park Avenue South
New York, New York 10010-7272 (212-598-6869)

>>> LeoCasey@AOL.COM 03/01/01 10:51AM >>>

I have no desire to engage in a lengthy dialogue on these questions, simply because I believe there is nothing of substance or interest to dialogue about. My e-mail of yesterday was designed to simply note -- in the face of the predictible personal attacks on Peter from the usual quarters -- that many of us who read these e-mails agreed with him.

There are certain political realities which seem obvious to all but a few on this list. They are:

1. The Cold War is over. One side -- the West -- won; the other side -- the East -- lost.

CB: An analogy would be the war for the Western Hemisphere is over. The racist, white Europeans won. The Indigenous peoples lost.

2. The East lost because "actually existing socialism" or "Communism" or "Stalinism" or whatever else you care to call the nature of the political regimes there collapsed, failed of its own internal contradictions. It was not invaded; it fell apart from within.

CB: This is atrocious history. The West invaded and attacked the Soviet Union in 1919. Many countries from the West were in the attack, like a gang rape. The West, in the form of Nazi Germany, attacked the SU in 1940 or whatever. This was literally the biggest attack and war in the history of humanity. The U.S. pointed nuclear weapons at the SU for 40 years. This was literally the biggest threat of war in the history of humanity.

The statement that the SU was not invaded has got to be the biggest lie I have ever seen.

This gives rise to the logical inference that a major cause of the fall of the SU was attacks and invasions and threat of attack by the West, for the SU not only suffered gargantuan physical human, economic and material loss from the Nazi invasion, but it had to warp its whole society in a militarized and centralized way to prepare for defense and defend these world historically vicious and destructive attacks. Sadly, this necessary preparation for survival, undermined the democracy necessary for socialism.

3. The manner and pace of the collapse of the East made it crystal clear that the political regimes in power there had no meaningful support among their working people.

CB; The attacks started right after the Russian Revolution. The SU held on for 70 some years under the most horrendous attacks in human history.The manner and pace of the collapse proves the opposite of Leo's conclusion.

4. The moral and political corruption of these regimes was evident long before they collapsed, and to all who allowed their eyes to see what was before them.

CB: The blindness and ignoring by Leo C. to the moral and political corruption of the regimes that he championing here pretty much disqualifies him to make this judgments about the victims of his "champions."

In the face of the millions of lives they claimed, from the top political leadership of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union to the ordinary worker and peasant, in the context of decades of political repression and denial of elementary human and democratic rights, it is simply preposterous to claim that the legacy of Stalin [and by implication, the East] revolves around "his" [ghost written] book on linguistics, or "his" role [having decimated the leadership ranks of the Red Army] in World War II.

CB: What is preposterous is Leo' pronouncements with the log in his own eye.

Maybe some other folks, perhaps even Peter, want to spend time debating these issues. Not me. For my part, whatever time and energy I have will be much better spent working on reconstructing a mass democratic left out of the ashes of Communism.

CB: Leo doesn't want to debate this, but make a pronouncement from "on high", which is why there isn't a ghost of a chance of something he works on resulting in a "mass democratic left".