I am sending the material reproduced here -- correspondence a writer for Left
Voice plus one of their more recent supporters, regarding the ban on leftist
literature at the March 2019 7K conference -- for the information of cdes.
Please do not reproduce or forward.
(The items begin with the most recent one; prior emails appear further down.)
________________________________
From: Sándor John <s_an@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2021 11:05 AM
To: Olivia Wood <jalawood@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: emily.mazo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <emily.mazo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Following up on conversation at today's PSC protest
Dear Olivia and Emily:
I had asked whether you had read the materials on the leftist literature ban at
the “7K or Strike” conference in the CUNY Contingents Unite bulletin. Having
not heard back, I am responding to the points that Olivia raised in reply to
the email I sent on February 15, after our conversation at a PSC-CUNY protest.
I am taking the time to respond in detail to your email, because I think that
fundamental principles are involved here, and that clarity on such questions is
crucial.
The basic points I would like to emphasize are:
(a) There was an actual ban on leftist literature at the 2 March 2019
conference. This was stated and reconfirmed in unequivocal terms. Such a ban
violated the basic principles of workers democracy and hard-won rights gained
and defended in struggles by generations of activists, notably at CUNY as
referred to in my February 15 letter.
(b) The ban was embraced as a means of excluding the Internationalists, as it
was clear that we would not go along with such anti-leftist censorship. No
genuine leftist, let alone communist, could.
(c) The ban was virulently defended by the leaders of the “CUNY Struggle”
group, notably its founder and central organizer Jarrod Shanahan, who also
upheld the use of an anti-communist song by a band that Olivia accurately
refers to as white-supremacist, in response to the posting of a statement from
a group of immigrant workers explaining why they could not agree to the
literature ban.
(d) The role of Left Voice went beyond going along with the ban “without
mentioning” it at the conference. In fact, James H. emphatically supported and
justified the ban, in writing; demanded that “everyone” agree to adhere to it;
and moreover demanded assurances that “every organizer of the conference agrees
to respect the rules” there as a condition for his participation, when the “#1
rule” laid down was precisely the ban on leftist literature. This was not only
explicit support to the prohibition of communist literature but a call for
exclusion of those who did not agree to it.
And (e) Left Voice indeed did consistently promote CUNY Struggle (CS)
specifically, including in the wake of the ban and of the methods CS used to
impose it, as I will go into below. Left Voice has continued this as CS and its
bloc partners formed “Rank and File Action” (RAFA).
Now I would like to go through the numbered points in your letter.
“1. Shortly before the conference was scheduled to happen, a time-limited vote
happened to change the location from the GC to the People's Forum.”
CUNY Contingents Unite first called for the conference in November 2018,
initiating plans for it and building for it heavily over the following two
months. In agreement with others involved in organizing for the conference, we
reserved two large Graduate Center rooms where innumerable CUNY conferences
have been held. In late January 2019, CUNY Struggle and its allies began to
push to move the event to the People’s Forum. On 30 January 2019, the CS member
who initiated that push posted a message to the “Adjuncts for 7K” organizing
group listserv, stating that at the People’s Forum, the “#1 rule” would be that
no “outside” groups could “pass out fliers, put them on the tables
or sell newspapers. If anyone does, they will be removed from the space by
staff immediately.”
It was because of this that the in-person 7K organizing meeting of 1 February
2019 passed a motion to “uphold the right of all in the labor and left movement
to put forward their views, including by distributing or selling literature” at
the conference. After that was approved, CS and its bloc partners pushed for a
motion to move the location to the People’s Forum, which passed amid claims
that no actual ban on left literature would be imposed. But on 2 February 2019,
a CS member posted quoting the Forum: “to be as clear as possible. We do not
allow for left political formations to distribute their newspapers or
literature in our space regardless of where they fall on the left political
spectrum.” After this, another CS leader administered the “vote” on the 7K
listserv to override the principle of the right of all to distribute literature
at the conference that had been voted three days previously. Subsequently,
those identified as Internationalist supporters were thrown off the listserv.
“2. IG-affiliates were surprised to learn that the People's Forum doesn’t allow
literature to be distributed in their space.”
Correct, we had no knowledge of this until the CS member announced the ban (the
“#1 rule”) on 30 January 2019. CS and its allies then went all-out to move the
conference no matter what, unleashing a barrage of anti-communist vilification,
red-baiting, “outing” activists’ affiliations and work locations, and treating
African American comrades as “invisible,” as one of them noted. It was
absolutely clear at the time that embracing the ban was being used as a
factional club to oust the Internationalists. The tone for the hate campaign
was set by postings such as those by Shanahan reviling us as “seasoned CUNY
wreckers”; his response to an African American comrade stating “Some of us have
read beyond the Manifesto. Cut the crap. Your behavior and that of your sect is
the best evidence I can think of for the wisdom of PF’s policy,” designed to
“keep unprincipled wreckers like you from doing what you do best” (3 February
2019), etc.
“3. IG-affiliated people representing various workers' groups chose to not
participate on principle, due to this ban.”
Due to the ban, CUNY Contingents Unite and Class Struggle Education Workers
withdrew from the conference, on principle as you state. So did the CUNY
undergraduate students from the CUNY Internationalist Clubs who had been
scheduled to be part of one of the panels. So did Trabajadores Internacionales
Clasistas (TIC), as well as the Laundry Workers Center (the LWC is not
affiliated with the IG), both of which were scheduled to participate in a panel
on “Other unions and immigrant workers organizing”; as a result, the latter
aspect was eliminated from the conference entirely. A number of unaffiliated
individuals, including by far the best-known scheduled speaker, also withdrew.
I will address points 4 and 5, on the role of Left Voice, below, but would
first like to address point 6.
“6. Someone affiliated with CUNY Struggle used music by and supports the music
of a white supremacist.”
A number of things are left out here. The “music of a white supremacist” was
from the xenophobic “Cock Sparrer” band, which is part of the fascistic “oi”
music milieu. This outfit is virulently English-nationalist, with a fan base of
British football hooligans and songs like “England Belongs to Me,” including
lyrics about “fighting all the way for the red, white and blue,” and other
titles such as “Secret Army,” “Take ’Em All” (“put ’em up against a wall and
shoot ’em”), etc. The song in question here rails against leftists who try to
sell “your press” to put forward a “party line.” It was used by a CS
spokesperson in direct response to the posting of the immigrant workers’ letter
that explained why distributing “leftist literature” is vital to their
struggles.
An adjunct wrote to the listserv, describing the nature of that band and its
connections to fascist violence here in New York, where two leftists were badly
beaten by fascist skinheads outside a Cock Sparrer concert after-party. In
response to this posting, CS leader Shanahan wrote to the listserv on 21
February 2019 raging against the posting of these facts, calling for the
adjunct who posted them to be “removed” from the listserv, proclaiming himself
a “life-long Cock Sparrer fan” and upholding the xenophobic band as “a beloved
fixture of working-class street culture.”
“4. James (with Left Voice) chose to still participate on his panel and still
covered the conference in an article, without mentioning the literature ban.”
Left Voice did not mention the literature ban at the conference, where James H.
was on a panel with the CS member who had first announced the ban, and another
Left Voice editorial board member was on a panel with CS leader Shanahan.
However, Left Voice’s role regarding the ban was by no means confined to saying
nothing on or against it at the conference itself or in articles on the LV
site. To the contrary, at the decisive moment in the controversy, the day after
CS announced that the People’s Forum did “not allow for left political
formations to distribute their newspapers or literature in our space,” James H.
posted to the “Adjuncts for 7K” listserv (3 February 2019) to “support having
the event at the Peoples Forum” and “abiding by the policies of the Peoples
Forum while using their space.” This escalated in his post on the following
day, headed to “Sandor and All” (4 February 2019), demanding, “regardless of
any other votes, or any seeming contradictions inherent in those votes,” that
the conference be held at this venue that prohibited leftist literature, and
that “everyone” agree to adhere to the literature ban, as a condition for
attending the conference.
In that post he asserted: “This is not censorship, It is not a gag order, it is
not anti-communist, and it is not a violation of any principals of workers’
democracy, as you suggest.” It most certainly was censorship, a gag order, and
a violation of the most elementary principles of workers democracy. A ban on
communist literature is an anti-communist ban. To deny that means justifying
and facilitating such a ban, which was exactly what the Left Voice spokesman
was doing.
Denouncing us for “railing against this simple rule” – i.e., the ban that had
been announced as the “#1 rule” – he justified the ban as “obviously meant to
create a non-sectarian environment in a space where they have probably had
problems with sectarian groups.” And he wrote:
“I am sorry, but before I can proceed to provide my support for this
conference, I need to be assured that every organizer of the conference agrees
to respect the rules of the space. That’s a pretty low bar. Anyone who cannot
commit to that should abstain from attending the conference. If organizers
can’t agree to commit to this simple agreement and insist on attending, then I
will not attend. It’s as simple as that.”
In response to a recent request from a Left Voice member for documentation, I
sent these quotations and noted: “This posting by someone prominent in CUNY
activism for quite some time, author of many articles on the topic, with some
involvement in discussions on conference planning, and even claiming the
political authority of being ‘also a Trotskyist,’ most definitely had an effect
in fulsomely backing the drive to steamroll through ‘agreement’ to the ban –
despite and against ‘any other votes’ and contradictions.” It wasn’t some
random blip. Writing publicly about the controversy months after the
conference, James H. branded us – echoing Jarrod Shanahan – as “wreckers,”
while characterizing the Revolution articles on it as “a pile of shit.”
It goes on. In October 2019, the CUNY Struggle member who had posted the Cock
Sparrer song in response to the immigrant workers’ letter published a “story”
online about me presenting “a leftist’s wet dream” against a “commie-ban.” The
adjunct who posted the facts about the white-nationalist band is described as
having “jumped in bed with Sandork” (sic); our papers are referred to as “your
rags”; and the piece goes on: “Cock Sparrer sang, You get your press with a
pocketful of lies.” The publication of this item was met with public
approbation by James H.
“5. We (Left Voice) still sometimes cover and promote events in which CUNY
Struggle is involved.”
It’s not a question of reporting on events in which some group happens to be
involved. Left Voice has specifically promoted CS, as far back as the 2017 GC
PSC elections in which it hyped the CUNY Struggle slate (see “CUNY, Where Do We
Go From Here?”<https://www.leftvoice.org/cuny-where-do-we-go-from-here> 20 May
2017). For its part, CS returns the favor, routinely promoting materials from
what it describes as “our comrades of Left Voice.”
The mutual promotion actually increased immediately following the bitter
struggle within the CUNY adjunct milieu over the anti-communist literature ban.
In April 2019, a few weeks after the postings from Shanahan quoted above, he
and another CS leader were featured as Left Voice launch party speakers (see
“Left Voice Launches New Magazine in New
York,”<https://www.leftvoice.org/left-voice-launches-new-magazine-in-new-york>
10 April 2019). An LV interview then promoted Shanahan and other CS
spokespeople as the voice of “Rank and File Revolt at
CUNY”<https://www.leftvoice.org/rank-and-file-revolt-at-cuny> (13 April 2019).
An LV piece on the PSC contract went out of its way to hail “CUNY Struggle, the
rank and file caucus that launched the $7KOS movement” (25 October 2019). And
so forth, continuing apace when CS and its bloc partners formed “Rank and File
Action,” and each new RAFA gimmick is hailed by Left Voice.
One of the most significant of all these articles was published shortly after
the ban: “What Is the Role of Socialists in the
Unions?”<https://www.leftvoice.org/what-is-the-role-of-socialists-in-the-unions>
(25 March 2019), in which LV’s founding leader denounces the “closed shop” or
“union shop,” citing for this position CUNY Struggle’s two most virulent
red-baiters: Shanahan and Andy Battle. Given their record and positions, it’s
not surprising that they would oppose the closed shop – which the notorious
anti-labor Taft-Hartley Law outlawed in 1947. What’s astounding is that a
“Trotskyist” group would echo this too.
Regarding the query as to whether CUNY Struggle actually is anti-communist,
this has been addressed above. I will just add here that, as described in the
CCU bulletin on 7K, red-baiting was already a pattern for CS long before the
struggle in 2019: it was how they responded to our emphasis on the importance
of adjuncts voting “Yes” in the union’s 2016 strike authorization vote; and to
our calls in 2017 for activists to forthrightly oppose threats made on the CUNY
Struggle listserv to try to get the union decertified and to take it before the
New York government agency that enforces the Taylor Law.
In your letter, you refer to the ban at the 7K conference as an “isolated
event,” noting that there is no CUNY-wide or union-wide ban on distributing
leftist literature. But just as we emphasized then, a terrible precedent was
being set by imposing such a prohibition at a CUNY organizing conference. (When
the “#1 rule” was announced, one of the ban’s enthusiastic backers wrote that
it was going to be “refreshing” to have a CUNY event “without sectarian lit
peddling.”)
But how and why had the freedom to distribute leftist literature become the
established norm until that point? Because of the whole history of struggles to
reject and defeat anti-leftist censorship – from CUNY in the 1930s and ’40s
(when elements from the Socialist Party went along with anti-red censorship and
purges) to the Free Speech Movement in 1964, to subsequent upheavals, down to
the defeat of the CUNY administration’s attempts to limit “expressive conduct”
in 2016.
Two last points that I think are important: The first is about the term
“wreckers.” This is not just an insult or epithet, it is a phrase with a
history, and a conclusion, namely exclusion. (The implicit logic: if they are
just there to wreck, then throw them out.) It goes back to the time of Stalin’s
Moscow Purge Trials of the 1930s against “Trotskyite splitters and wreckers.”
But it isn’t just used by Stalinists; social democrats have used it, too, to
get rid of “reds.” British Labour Party leader Neil Kinnock railed against
“wreckers” in 1985 as he drove out the Militant tendency and went after the
British mine workers leader Arthur Scargill, leading Labour to scab on the
miners strike. The term was used in the CUNY adjunct milieu in the same way, to
justify excluding the so-called wreckers who had initiated the conference,
i.e., the communists.
The second is that we don’t put an equal sign between CUNY Struggle (and its
representatives in RAFA), whose spokespeople like Jarrod Shanahan positively
revel in red-baiting, as you have seen, and Left Voice. Rather I would describe
LV’s role, tailing and promoting such supposed “rank-and-file leaders,” as that
of enabler and apologist for these anti-communists.
The issues I have sought to address here aren’t about an “isolated” event but
about principles which (like that of the picket line) must be defended in the
here and now, if they are not to be blotted out. Many groups today claim the
legacy of Leon Trotsky. Yet those that sacrifice hard-won principles of the
revolutionary movement, in their eagerness to get in on what seems expedient
and popular at the moment, have no legitimate claim to it. Opposition to
anti-communist censorship, and defense of workers democracy, are among the most
basic of those principles.
I am appending the letter from Trabajadores Internacionales Clasistas, followed
by links to the CUNY Contingents Unite bulletin and Revolution articles
referred to above.
Sincerely,
Sándor
***************************************
Letter from TIC; Spanish original sent 8 February 2019, English translation
sent 10 February 2019.
From Trabajadores Internacionales Clasistas to the organizers of “CUNY-wide 7K
or strike conference.” This letter to you was discussed and approved at our
meeting tonight. We request that you confirm to us that you have received
this. A translation will be sent to you soon.
* * *
To those in charge of the “CUNY-wide 7K or strike conference and organizing
day”:
We are writing to you because we have found out that the conditions of our
scheduled presentation and participation at this conference have changed, given
that now it is required that we accept and abide by a rule that specifically
prohibits the left from distributing, selling or even “putting on tables” any
type of literature, on pain of being “immediately removed” from the space where
the conference will be held.
When we were invited to participate in the conference, we were very glad to
accept, because we know that the struggle of the adjunct professors of CUNY,
who are badly paid and are lacking job security, is connected in a thousand
ways with the hopes of our own sons and daughters, and of so many immigrant
families, of receiving an education that is worthy of them. We have gone to
many CUNY marches to give our support and connect our struggles together. So
when we accepted the invitation, we never imagined that this would mean
accepting this kind of condition of exclusion.
The program of our organization and its very name, Trabajadores Internacionales
Clasistas, show that we are a “left formation”. Our word and our program, our
activities and our opinions, these we make known through printed materials as
well as in presentations, speeches, etc. At this time that is the case of our
fliers and our pamphlet being prepared on the struggle of the taxi workers, the
ones about our demand for full citizenship rights, and about solidarity with
the Mexican teachers, with the Haitian immigrants, with Ayotzinapa, and also
with the new campaign of the women laundry workers.
We have never seen this kind of prohibition at the conferences and events we
have participated in, notably at CUNY, which have always welcomed us
fraternally and without conditions. Obviously, no such thing was demanded of us
in March of last year at the “Conference in Defense of Immigrants and Muslims”
that was held in the CUNY Graduate Center, where those speaking for the TIC
were our compañeras the domestic workers Margarita and Rocío and the taxi
worker Lucio, sharing the table with Mahoma López of the Laundry Workers
Center, who is widely known in the workers’ movement for his role leading the
Hot and Crusty/Brod Kitchen struggle. At that conference, we placed our fliers
on a table, we gave out copies of them, and we invited people to become
acquainted with them.
So how can we now accept being required to surrender the rights of workers’
democracy, for ourselves or for any other formation in the labor and left
movement? These are some of the only rights we have in this society, which
excludes us as pariahs, calling us illegals and criminals, and deprives us of
almost every form of expression because it wants to suffocate and silence our
rebeldía (=rebelliousness or rebellion) against this exploiting system. Almost
all the founders of our organization have been repressed, discriminated
against, or thrown out of their jobs for not obeying unjust rules and
prohibitions, when we try to organize unions, workers’ committees, protests
against wage theft, against sexual abuse, etc. (things which require
distributing fliers where it is “forbidden” to do so).
A labor movement conference is almost the only “space” in this society where we
would assume the norm to be that these rights are respected, not violated. We
do not accept violating the principle of workers’ solidarity. As workers with
consciousness and dignity we do not give up our rights, nor those of anyone
else – not to anyone, much less to you.
“Ni ilegales, ni criminales, somos obreros internacionales”
Charlie M., TIC, student at Hostos Community College from 2006 to 2011; fired
(from Hot & Crusty restaurant) for being vice president of the Hot & Crusty
Workers Association, 2012
Antonio E., TIC, dismissed from Vegetable Garden restaurant when it closed in
reprisal for the formation of a workers’ committee, 1996
Lucio, TIC, taxi worker
Rocío, TIC, house cleaning worker
Margarita, TIC, house cleaning worker, fired after asking for higher pay
Daniel, TIC, taxi worker
Lizette, TIC, fired after asking for payment of back wages in a NY laundry
February 8, 2019
P.S. Comment by Rocío: It is ironic that people from a casa de estudios
(=educational institution) would carry out this ban.
***************************************
The CUNY Contingents Unite bulletin on 7K is online here:
cunycontingents.files.wordpress.com/2019/05/april-2019-ccu-perspectives-and-7k-bulletin-3.pdf<https://cunycontingents.files.wordpress.com/2019/05/april-2019-ccu-perspectives-and-7k-bulletin-3.pdf>
The Revolution articles on the 7K conference are on pages 7-9 of this issue:
http://www.internationalist.org/Revolution16web.pdf
________________________________
From: Sándor John <s_an@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2021 1:34 PM
To: Olivia Wood <jalawood@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: emily.mazo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <emily.mazo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Following up on conversation at today's PSC protest
Hi Olivia and Emily -- Getting in touch to see if you saw my note and
correction from Feb. 23-24 (reproduced below), as I wanted to check on that
before responding to Olivia's Feb. 23 email. I planned to do so earlier, but
have been swamped with activities in support of the immigrant women workers
that the Liox/Wash Supply company fired on Feb. 19 for forming a union.
Probably you saw material on the solidarity rallies and marches from near the
LES Tenement Museum to Whole Foods (highlighting solidarity with the Alabama
Amazon workers) to the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire; here is a short video from the
MSN site about the one held this past Saturday in honor of International
Women's Day. (While showing different aspects of the protest, for some reason
the video's second half focuses on something a Make the Road representative did
toward the end of the final rally, expressing a rather different approach.) SJ
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/video/viral/demonstrators-backing-new-york-laundry-workers-march-to-mark-international-women-s-day/vi-BB1eklYQ
[https://www.bing.com/th?id=OVF.FaaExmeD%2bp4HizJkEGLCmQ&pid=Api]<https://www.msn.com/en-gb/video/viral/demonstrators-backing-new-york-laundry-workers-march-to-mark-international-women-s-day/vi-BB1eklYQ>
Demonstrators backing New York laundry workers march to mark International
Women's
Day<https://www.msn.com/en-gb/video/viral/demonstrators-backing-new-york-laundry-workers-march-to-mark-international-women-s-day/vi-BB1eklYQ>
Labour and women’s rights activists marched in Manhattan ahead of International
Women’s Day (IWD) in support of workers alleging wrongful terminations and
union-busting tactics by the Liox laundry service at a Wash Supply laundromat.
The protest started at a Liox location on the Lower East Side and concluded at
the historic site of the 1911 ...
www.msn.com
________________________________
From: Sándor John <s_an@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2021 7:08 AM
To: Olivia Wood <jalawood@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: emily.mazo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <emily.mazo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Following up on conversation at today's PSC protest
A correction re the page numbers in the CCU 7K bulletin with the mentioned
items: as per Feb. 15 email, those items begin on page 17, not 22.
https://cunycontingents.files.wordpress.com/2019/05/april-2019-ccu-perspectives-and-7k-bulletin-3.pdf
SJ
________________________________
From: Sándor John <s_an@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2021 10:43 PM
To: Olivia Wood <jalawood@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: emily.mazo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <emily.mazo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Following up on conversation at today's PSC protest
Hi Olivia (cc Emily) -- Thank you for your response. I just wanted to
double-check first that when you mention articles you went over, this includes
the materials on pp. 22-30 of the CCU bulletin on 7K:
https://cunycontingents.files.wordpress.com/2019/05/april-2019-ccu-perspectives-and-7k-bulletin-3.pdf
Among the letters and statements there is the aforementioned one from
Trabajadores Internacionales Clasistas activists explaining in detail what it
meant concretely for them to be required, for their participation in the
conference (at which they had long been scheduled to be part of a panel), to
accept a ban on "outside" and leftist literature (or being "removed from the
space by staff immediately"). It was directly in response to the posting of
that letter that the xenophobic English-chauvinist skinhead band's song against
leftist newspaper sellers was posted (with the aftermath described in the
Revolution articles). Other items in that section are also relevant to several
points in your letter. SJ
<https://cunycontingents.files.wordpress.com/2019/05/april-2019-ccu-perspectives-and-7k-bulletin-3.pdf>
________________________________
From: Olivia Wood <jalawood@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2021 12:42 PM
To: Sándor John <s_an@xxxxxxx>
Cc: emily.mazo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <emily.mazo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Following up on conversation at today's PSC protest
Hi Sandor,
Yes, sorry, I've been meaning to write back to you but have been busy this
week! The 7k or Strike conference happened shortly after I first moved to NYC,
so I wasn't involved in the organizing or with Left Voice at that time, but I
did attend the conference. Based on the articles you shared, my understanding
is as follows:
1. Shortly before the conference was scheduled to happen, a time-limited
vote happened to change the location from the GC to the People's Forum.
2. IG-affiliates were surprised to learn that the People's Forum doesn't
allow literature to be distributed in their space.
3. IG-affiliated people representing various workers' groups chose to not
participate on principle, due to this ban
4. James (with Left Voice) chose to still participate on his panel and still
covered the conference in an article, without mentioning the literature ban
5. Someone affiliated with CUNY Struggle used music by and supports the
music of a white supremacist.
6. We (Left Voice) still sometimes cover and promote events in which CUNY
Struggle is involved.
What I don't understand is why the article seems to take the position that the
literature ban was an underhanded surprise/perhaps specifically targeted to
prevent copies of The Internationalist from being sold. In my understanding,
the People's Forum always has that rule. This is why Left Voice has not had our
own magazine launches there, for example. I also don't know which rooms at the
GC were originally reserved for the conference, but based on which rooms are
typically used for community events and the number of people I remember being
present at the conference, I would certainly assume that space concerns were a
major factor in wanting to change the location. I remember being
impressed/excited by how many people were in attendance. Even if the process by
which this was decided was rushed/confusing/not done in the most democratic
way, it certainly doesn't seem to have been done with the intentions implied by
the article.
It also seems, based on the article, that the IG-affiliated participants
voluntarily chose to withdraw, rather than being banned from participating on
their panels and expressing their views vocally (instead of in print). So, this
seems to be a tactical or perhaps strategic disagreement on where to draw the
line. I also want to respond to some of your comments, which I'll paste below
in blue.
"Lastly, about the role of Left Voice specifically with regard to the
anti-leftist-literature ban, this is addressed in the first of the articles
linked above. As to why, before, during and after all this, LV continued to
heavily promote the anti-communist group that rammed through the ban, this is
related to a particular conception of work in the labor movement exemplified by
its approach towards RAFA in the PSC and the Movement of Rank and File
Educators (the MORE caucus) in the UFT. For us, this is counterposed to basing
work in the unions on a clear class-struggle program and approach, based on the
principles of militant labor solidarity -- in deeds as well as words.
It seems to be making some leaps to equate "CUNY Struggle wanting to move to
People's Forum" with "CUNY Struggle is explicitly anti-Communist" and "CUNY
Struggle's real/primary goal was to 'ram through the left literature ban.'" At
worst, it seems to me like they were prioritizing advantages of space w/o
particularly caring about the ban and who it would affect/how it would affect
them. It does not seem to me like the ban was the motivating factor itself.
But speaking to the second part of your point more as a CUNY worker than as a
Left Voice member--- and this is just my own personal opinion--- I think we
need to look at the situation in context. As you know, a large portion of the
PSC membership is disengaged, not interested in class struggle, more than happy
to defer to the union leadership's judgment. I think the immediate task is to
advocate for greater rank-and-file mobilization and involvement in the union,
while simultaneously arguing for the most class-struggle-oriented approaches.
And I think how to strike this balance (and what the balance should be) varies
based on the particular situation at hand.
This includes fighting to actively connect struggles within CUNY with those of
the city's multiracial working class, notably its doubly oppressed
"essential-worker" and immigrant sectors; and to bring in CUNY undergrads, many
of whom are the children of those working-class sectors. Clearly, supporting
bans on leftist literature, and backing or staying silent on the methods used
to uphold them, is completely counterposed to that task -- and to being able to
win the struggle at CUNY."
I fully agree with the first part of this comment. And if there was a PSC-wide
ban (or strong pressures against) sharing any leftist literature in any form in
union spaces, I would certainly have a problem with that. Definitely. But it's
not like the PSC or rank-and-file groups within it (like CUNY Struggle) always
make a point to have events at People's Forum for this reason. I see the CUNY
Internationalist Group folks at a lot of student and union events, like at my
first year student orientation, which is when I first heard of the group, and
at the last several PSC protests I've been to, I've seen people selling
newspapers and handing out flyers. So, I definitely agree that being able to
dialogue with people and advocate for revolutionary points of view is
important. But the 7k or Strike Conference seems to have been an isolated event
not indicative of larger problematic currents (such as an ongoing ban or
sanctioning of revolutionaries, or support of white supremacists outside of
this one organizer sharing this song and defending the ban), outside of the
general reformism rampant in the PSC.
So, thank you again for sending me this information. I do feel more informed
about it, and I do understand why you have your point of view, but I also
disagree with your conclusions from this particular situation.
Best,
Olivia
On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 9:02 AM Sándor John <s_an@xxxxxxx<mailto:s_an@xxxxxxx>>
wrote:
Hi Emily and Olivia,
I wanted to check back to see if you received the email reproduced below
following up on our conversation at the PSC demo last week.. Additionally, I
wanted to see if you've heard about Friday's mass firing of immigrant women
workers at the Wash Supply laundry in Manhattan; there will be an emergency
solidarity protest today that we're publicizing via union lists etc. -- please
let me know if you'd like further information/background, the flier, etc.
Greetings,
Sándor
________________________________
From: Sándor John <s_an@xxxxxxx<mailto:s_an@xxxxxxx>>
Sent: Monday, February 15, 2021 9:18 PM
To: emily.mazo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:emily.mazo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<emily.mazo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:emily.mazo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>;
jalawood@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:jalawood@xxxxxxxxx>
<jalawood@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:jalawood@xxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: Following up on conversation at today's PSC protest
Dear Emily and Olivia,
(Note: I was intending to include Sam here, but as gave me his Newsdive card,
I'm not sure if he was there with you as an LV supporter, so I will write him a
brief note separately.)
I was glad to meet you at today's PSC demonstration outside CUNY's central
office, and will be interested to read the article about the protest you
mentioned you will be writing for Left Voice.
At today's protest you got the CUNY Contingents Unite (CCU) newsletter that a
number of us were handing out. I look forward to any comments, questions and/or
critiques you may have on the perspective it puts forward. It can also be found
online at the CCU site, together with other statements on struggles at CUNY
expressing CCU's class-struggle outlook as an organizing group against CUNY's
two-tier labor system:
cunycontingents.wordpress.com<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcunycontingents.wordpress.com%2F&data=04%7C01%7C%7C61fc939926a84f1cd75308d8d8226fab%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637496989696914146%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=9l2PqNcP28aR5b%2B21dwXgpuQrAwEnE%2Bshv%2BaqUVcUXg%3D&reserved=0>
As I mentioned, some of us are also part of a group called Class Struggle
Education Workers, active in the PSC, UFT, DC37 and some other unions.
At today's protest, the only organized left currents coming with signs, fliers
etc. from CUNY unionists and students were those from the CCU and the
undergrads brought out by the CUNY Internationalist Clubs, mainly made up of
African American, Latina and Asian student activists from Hunter College. This
highlights the other topic I promised to send you material on. That's because
these currents at CUNY -- together with the immigrant worker activists of
Trabajadores Internacionales Clasistas -- were centrally targeted by the ban on
leftist literature imposed on the CUNY organizing conference on "7K or Strike"
held at the height of struggle over the most recent union contract. The CSEW
and TIC are fraternally associated with the Internationalist Group, U.S.
section of the League for the Fourth International.
Regarding the anti-red ban I mentioned, I was a little surprised, during the
friendly discussion that the four of us had today, that none of you had heard
about this subject til now, in light of its importance and implications as well
(as Left Voice's own role; the topic has also been the subject of
correspondence between an LV activist and a member of the Internationalist
youth group.) Thus I hope you will look into the events and issues, read
everything available, and see what you think about it. The events are
summarized in this article from the paper of the CUNY Internationalist Clubs
and Revolutionary Internationalist Youth:
internationalist.org/cuny-struggle-anti-red-ban-1905.html<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.internationalist.org%2Fcuny-struggle-anti-red-ban-1905.html&data=04%7C01%7C%7C61fc939926a84f1cd75308d8d8226fab%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637496989696924143%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=DqtqI3H76mvroqJbo73TDKxKjMmAevTC2VMwAUUp7Z0%3D&reserved=0>
That article also refers readers to this one in the same issue, on the struggle
over the union contract, stakes for students, and 7K:
internationalist.org/win-7k-with-massive-class-struggle1905.html<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.internationalist.org%2Fwin-7k-with-massive-class-struggle1905.html&data=04%7C01%7C%7C61fc939926a84f1cd75308d8d8226fab%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637496989696924143%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=elrj1PUFPpjocq9Be7BPDd0h5wpCi6eDaagmmcrt5Eg%3D&reserved=0>
I would also really recommend reading this CCU bulletin on strategy and tactics
at CUNY -- beginning on page 17 it includes detailed documentation on the 7K
conference, the anti-communist ban and related topics:
https://cunycontingents.files.wordpress.com/2019/05/april-2019-ccu-perspectives-and-7k-bulletin-3.pdf<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcunycontingents.files.wordpress.com%2F2019%2F05%2Fapril-2019-ccu-perspectives-and-7k-bulletin-3.pdf&data=04%7C01%7C%7C61fc939926a84f1cd75308d8d8226fab%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637496989696934132%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=PuV9ZyPXBOmJF1Il6xiJ9e8LbMkuSccqQJ%2FmPz9YBqg%3D&reserved=0>
* * * * *
A few comments for now: Although the ban against any and all leftist
literature was wielded to get supporters of a particular left tendency (ours)
out of the way, using means that openly violated workers democracy, it
affected the rights of all. We pointed out that such bans set a terrible
precedent, that would be wielded against left-minded activists of every
persuasion, not just us. At CUNY this connects with the long history of
administration and rightist attempts to censor and silence leftists. There are
a lot of examples in recent years (notably targeting faculty and activists who
defend the Palestinian people) -- but it goes back decades. Teachers and
students fought huge struggles against red-ban attempts and purges starting in
the 1930s. (Some useful materials on this are online in "The Struggle for Free
Speech at CCNY, 1931-42,"
virtualny.ashp.cuny.edu/gutter/panels/panel1.html#<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fvirtualny.ashp.cuny.edu%2Fgutter%2Fpanels%2Fpanel1.html%23&data=04%7C01%7C%7C61fc939926a84f1cd75308d8d8226fab%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637496989696934132%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=1uKndv5wgRnl%2Fv3%2FgDHzWgvH4511dDfkvKBBYRq75bU%3D&reserved=0>
)
Supporting or going along with an anti-red literature ban means trashing not
only those fights key to CUNY's whole history of radical activism but the
rights of the workers and oppressed today, if deemed convenient for momentary
advantage. That is something bureaucrats-in-training do, not revolutionaries.
The specific methods and techniques used to ram through and uphold the ban also
have big implications. The central role was played by the "CUNY Struggle"
group, which was key to founding and leading what is now called RAFA. When
immigrant workers from Trabajadores Internacionales Clasistas* wrote a letter
protesting the literature ban and explaining -- very concretely -- how it
affected them, the immigrant workers' letter was responded to with a video of
an anti-communist song by a xenophobic English-nationalist band called "Cock
Sparrer" (sic). When an adjunct (not part of our group) wrote on the 7K
listserv addressing key facts related to the rightist skinhead band (including
with regard to Proud Boy violence against antiracists in New York), the founder
of CUNY Struggle called for his ouster, while proclaiming himself a "life-long
fan of Cock Sparrer." Etc.
There is more that can be said on these particular aspects, but I will leave it
there.
* * * * *
Lastly, about the role of Left Voice specifically with regard to the
anti-leftist-literature ban, this is addressed in the first of the articles
linked above. As to why, before, during and after all this, LV continued to
heavily promote the anti-communist group that rammed through the ban, this is
related to a particular conception of work in the labor movement exemplified by
its approach towards RAFA in the PSC and the Movement of Rank and File
Educators (the MORE caucus) in the UFT. For us, this is counterposed to basing
work in the unions on a clear class-struggle program and approach, based on the
principles of militant labor solidarity -- in deeds as well as words.
This includes fighting to actively connect struggles within CUNY with those of
the city's multiracial working class, notably its doubly oppressed
"essential-worker" and immigrant sectors; and to bring in CUNY undergrads, many
of whom are the children of those working-class sectors. Clearly, supporting
bans on leftist literature, and backing or staying silent on the methods used
to uphold them, is completely counterposed to that task -- and to being able to
win the struggle at CUNY.
I have sought to address some of these points because in the course of the four
of us talking today, I noted some surprise and alarm about the events I
mentioned, which makes sense given the facts and issues involved. But as
mentioned, no one should "take somebody's word for it" -- checking things out
for oneself is key for effective work in the labor and radical movements.
Looking forward to your feedback,
Sándor John
* To get an idea of what Trabajadores Internacionales Clasistas and the CSEW
stand for, see
internationalist.org/TIC-Voces-del-epicentro-web-2011.pdf<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.internationalist.org%2FTIC-Voces-del-epicentro-web-2011.pdf&data=04%7C01%7C%7C61fc939926a84f1cd75308d8d8226fab%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637496989696944127%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=aQHm%2B5GpwFvaDETLB8BkqLURDqslm7oxaBtISU45wXQ%3D&reserved=0>
and
edworkersunite.blogspot.com/?q=garner<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fedworkersunite.blogspot.com%2F%3Fq%3Dgarner&data=04%7C01%7C%7C61fc939926a84f1cd75308d8d8226fab%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637496989696944127%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=bRYLURM8rJTavG37Hsqmuqic%2BbYHKPAKueotfonCGrI%3D&reserved=0>
