Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 14:06:16 +0000 (GMT)
From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Scott=20Hamilton?= <s_h_hamilton-AT-yahoo.com>
Subject: AUT: How to quote: some lessons for beginners




I don't know why it is necessary to point his out, but
I never compared the attitude of the IWW to World War
One to the attitude of the AFL-CIO to that conflict,
as Harald seems to allege when he writes that 

he talks about IWW as opposed > to the brave union
bureaucrats of the AFL(CIO) > "succumb[ing]
> to the backwardness and social imperialism of the
> Anglophone countries ..."

What I wrote was:

"On the site you can read USLAW's anti-war resolution
and the impressive list of unions that have endorsed
it or put forward their own (ironic that USLAW's
resolution is more radical than the resolution of the
supposedly revolutionary IWW!)"

It would be rather daft to give any time to the
AFL-CIO's line on the First World War, since the
AFL-CIO was only created in 1955.

Harald also claims that I endorse the Labour Party -
the Labour Party, presumably, of the United States. He
writes that 

> It is hardly no coincidence that Scott's chooses to
> endorse the social democrat Labour Party and defend
> "our" > union bureaucracy agenda around Labor Notes,
> which I am almost certain is what his Workers
> Actions' > is about.

I have never even discussed, much less defended, a US
Labour Party on this list, and I've never even heard
of anything called Labor Notes. Harald suggests that
I'm a member or supporter of Workers Action, but I was
careful to add, at the end of the post he is trying to
reply to, that

>(NB: I am not a supporter
of Workers Action or the Workers Party but I think
that
>the comments of Workers Action on this subject are
very interesting and probably correct.)


Harald has replied to some of the CWG articles on the
situation in Argentina which I have forwarded to this
list and defended. Does he not remember that these
articles take aim at the Workers Party, the 'mother
party' of Workers Action?

Harald doesn't think much of the view that the IWW
failed to oppose World War One and that many of its
members succumbed to social imperialism:

"declare Scott's historical revisionism amazing and
absolutely absurd...Scotts historical remarks are at
the very best laughable. They look more like the
rewriting of history in the best Stalinist
tradition...
While there never was and never will be an
organization without any faults, not even 
a U.S. Stalinist would have dared put forth
such a a laugable lie."

I'm the first to admit that I'm no expert on the IWW.
But I did chase up a couple of histories of the
organisation because I was interested in its attitude
to earlier wars. When my comments about the IWW's
record were queried I took the trouble to type up a
few quotes from a couple of books, one of which (the
1905-75 history) gave every impression of being an
official history published by the IWW itself. For the
record, here are the full details of the books:

Thompson, Fred
The I.W.W. : its first seventy years, 1905-1975 : the
history of an effort to organize the working class. 
Chicago : Industrial Workers of the World, 1976. 
238 p. : ill. ; 23 cm

Renshaw, Patrick
The Wobblies; the story of syndicalism in the United
States
Garden City, N.Y., Doubleday, 1967
312 p. illus., ports. 22 cm. 

Surely, if Harald wants to dispute the viewpoint I
base upon the books, he should make some effort to
critique the quotes I offered? A little less hot air
and a little more close reading might come in handy.
I'm not holding my breath...

Cheers
Scott



 












 


===="Revolution is not like cricket, not even one day cricket"

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com


     --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---