It's Me vs. Him

by Melvin Little

Comrades,

Joe DeNeen writes:
Yes, Melvin, you are correct that the conservatives, the right-wing, the Yellows, the bourgeois socialists has a majority on the NC and can block anything and everything. So yes, you probably have nothing to fear, and is why I said censure "may" be brought, but since the probability it would pass it nil, I probably won't bother.

This in itself is a slanderous remark. You are asserting that there's some kind of right-wing cabal that control the SP. It is the furthest thing from the truth. There are no conservatives, right-wing, Yellows, or bourgeois socialists on the National Committee. You think that people like David McReynolds, the Chicago SP Branch itself, and SP North Carolina are right-wing. It is all about interpertation. David McReynolds joined the Socialist Party USA or the Socialist Party of America in 1951; he was also seen as the left-wing of the party. He was part of the left-wing in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, and until recently? David McReynolds has never held an elected office, but I do consider him an American cross between retired Labour MP Tony Benn and Svend Robinson, the former Foreign Affairs Critic and NDP MP inside the Canadian House of Commons. I choose Tony Been for his age and his principled committment to democratic-socialis, and Svend Robinson due to being involved with the peace movement abroad and also being the first gay man to be elected to the Canadian House of Commons. When I compare someone to Tony Benn and Svend Robinson, it is meant as the highest compliment. David McReynolds is too my left, but he REJECTS sectarianism. He respects political differences. David McReynolds is a left-socialist.

Regarding the Chicago Socialist Party, it is beyond any concept of humour that they would be written off as "right-wing social-democrats" as you claim. Like David McReynolds, the Chicago SP is too my left. I am not bothered by this, for they REJECT sectarianism. They are also left-socialists.

Like it or not, we do have a social-democratic tendency throughout this party. I am not the idelogical compass for the Socialist Party of North Carolina, but I would argue that SP North Carolina is a left-wing social-democratic statewide party. We are viewed too far left by some in the North Carolina Green Party, but SP North Carolina takes the high road and go on with the struggle without worrying too much wheather the Greens like us or not. I would also argue that the Socialist Party of Wisconsin is also a social-democratic type of party; just read some of the articles that comes out of "The Wisconsin Socialist Observer." Better yet, read some of the books Don Busky had published, "Democratic Socialism: A Global Survey." You might actually learn something.

Joe DeNeen writes:
And let me make a correction to my initial post. Only the signatories of the North Carolina letter should be censured for lies and slander. I received my referendum ballot yesterday and read the con statement and there is no references to DT, so it is a mute issue. But the North Carolina letter is slanderous and its signatories should be censured for attacks on DT similar to, if not worse, than Chester's attacks on Misnik and Solidarity for which he was properly censured.

You would have a point if there were actually any slander. Eric Chester, nevertheless, engaged on a campaign of disinformation about Joana Mesnik and her Comrades from the Chicago SP, harassed North Carolina for alledgedly crawling into bed with a leftist running in the North Carolina Democratic Primaries, while not having anything to say about Peter Diamondstone's name being entered in both the 1998 Vermont Democratic & Republican primaries for the US House and as an actual Democratic candidate in the US House in 2000 against an already elected Independent democratic-socialist.

Joe DeNeen writes:
I'm sorry my interpretation of the Party's history does not please you. There is no membership requirement saying one must agree with any official line on the Party's history, so I think I am free to read and interpret as I see fit. My only point is we are not the sole heirs of the old Socialist Party of America, nor should we be. The SPA drifted rightward for decades and concluded in renaming itself as Social Democrats USA -- obviously this would require a majority decision, so a majority must have supported this. I embrace the Debs era, period.

You are right about one thing. There is no official rules that shall dictate that you love every aspect of the SP's official history dating back to 1901 (or 1898 when Eugene V Debs founded the Social Democratic Party of America). You can choose to like any famous SP figure you want more than the other. But if we are not the sole heirs or the heirs to the Socialist Party of America, then what are we? Why even mention the name of Debs as you did with your tendency? In some ways, you are right about the SPA drifting right for decades. I am NOT a member nor ever expressed any desire whatsever to join Social Democrats USA. This is why I am a member of both the Socialist Party USA and Democratic Socialists of America. And of course, I have my reasons for being a dual member. With the SP, I admire the committment to building a third party. With DSA, I am a member because of their affiliation with the Socialist International. They both share the legacy of Eugene V. Debs and Norman Thomas. I, myself, do not share my politics with you anymore than I would with Leo Casey of DSA.

For Bread, Roses, and Peaceful Revolutions!
Melvin Little
Socialist Party of North Carolina