DIY History | Transcribe | Hevelin Fanzines | Milty's Mag, December 1941

Transcribe
Translate

Milty's Mag, December 1941

31858063105104_010

Milty's Mag      Page ten

from the stencil, and CUT! That psychological argument, up above, would have been a sorry mess if I had not written it three times before stenciling it.

The argument on unions is going to be cut short for the reason that I do not have sufficient detailed knowledge to argue competently beyond this point. What I was trying to prove last time was that Jack does not know enough about the subject for his opinion to be considered seriously by others. I am not saying that my opinion deserves more consideration, but I will say this: the majority of people whom I like and whose interests coincide with mind (liberals, socialists, labor, etc.) are in favor of unions as a practical method of giving economic security to working people.

Don't get me wrong; I am not merely getting on a bandwagon. But when you are in quest of an opinion and have not sufficient first-hand or technical information on which to base that opinion, then you look and see what the opinion is of those people of whom you approve in other ways. If the modicum of information which I do possess confirms that opinion, then I can feel fairly happy.

This matter of forming opinions is one upon which most people are far too thoughtless. Speer treats it too lightly; an entire essay should be written concerning it.

just three things concerning the specific argument: My sole reason for mentioning Speer's background was to show that his environment gave him no opportunity for learning about unions, and that any information he has must come from other sources. Any other interpretation of those remarks is false. ... It is significant that every dictator has destroyed or emasculated unions as one of the first steps in grasping power. While that, in itself, proves nothing, its implications must be considered. ... Speer, in proposing political action rather than direct conflict, ignores the basic necessities that existed when unions started. Unions were, historically, the inevitable result of direct motives. Any argument which starts "This should have been done..." is not only futile, but cannot be proven. This business of organizing from the bottom up rather than from the top down is, we think, real democracy. It is understood quite well why those at the top fear it. And the faults that it has (grafting, racketeering, etc.) are not faults of the labor movement, but of commercialism itself, of the entire economic world. You do not hear people advocating the abolishment of Philadelphia because it is run by crooks.

Paul Freehafer: I have never claimed that In Fact and Friday were impartial. I spoke specifically of "telling the other side of the story." There is no impartial news source in the world. Everybody tells the news in favor of his own side. The point is that there are damn few papers who will put the faults of labor into the correct proportion beside the enormous (and unpublicized) faults of capital and government.

Saving...

Milty's Mag Page ten from the stencil, and CUT! That psychological argument, up above, would have been a sorry mess if I had not written it three times before stenciling it. The argument on unions is going to be cut short for the reason that I do not have sufficient detailed knowledge to argue competently beyond this point. What I was trying to prove last time was that Jack does not know enough about the subject for his opinion to be considered seriously by others. I am not saying that my opinion deserves more consideration, but I will say this: the majority of people whom I like and whose interests coincide with mind (liberals, socialists, labor, etc.) are in favor of unions as a practical method of giving economic security to working people. Don't get me wrong; I am not merely getting on a bandwagon. But when you are in quest of an opinion and have not sufficient first-hand or technical information on which to base that opinion, then you look and see what the opinion is of those people of whom you approve in other ways. If the modicum of information which I do possess confirms that opinion, then I can feel fairly happy. This matter of forming opinions is one upon which most people are far too thoughtless. Speer treats it too lightly; an entire essay should be written concerning it. just three things concerning the specific argument: My sole reason for mentioning Speer's background was to show that his environment gave him no opportunity for learning about unions, and that any information he has must come from other sources. Any other interpretation of those remarks is false. ... It is significant that every dictator has destroyed or emasculated unions as one of the first steps in grasping power. While that, in itself, proves nothing, its implications must be considered. ... Speer, in proposing political action rather than direct conflict, ignores the basic necessities that existed when unions started. Unions were, historically, the inevitable result of direct motives. Any argument which starts "This should have been done..." is not only futile, but cannot be proven. This business of organizing from the bottom up rather than from the top down is, we think, real democracy. It is understood quite well why those at the top fear it. And the faults that it has (grafting, racketeering, etc.) are not faults of the labor movement, but of commercialism itself, of the entire economic world. You do not hear people advocating the abolishment of Philadelphia because it is run by crooks. Paul Freehafer: I have never claimed that In Fact and Friday were impartial. I spoke specifically of "telling the other side of the story." There is no impartial news source in the world. Everybody tells the news in favor of his own side. The point is that there are damn few papers who will put the faults of labor into the correct proportion beside the enormous (and unpublicized) faults of capital and government.