By Melvin Little III
My sensible (but sometimes abrasive) friend George Greene said this to his "detractors" in the past, and I think that I'll say this to you since it is appropriate. FUCK YOU BITCH! Just go to HELL. Do NOT pass go; do NOT collect $200.00. Just go to HELL!
For Bread, Red Roses, and Peaceful Revolutions!
Melvin Little
Socialist Party of North Carolina (http://www.ncsocialist.org/)
"I would never trade one form of tyranny for another."
Tommy Douglas
The rabid weasel is hungry again. Hide the feed bag.
>From: RedLabor@aol.com
>Reply-To: debsian@lists.riseup.net
>To: debsian@lists.riseup.net
>Subject: [debsian] Re: From the National Committee meeting for the IC
>Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 23:28:07 EDT
>
>[RAUL CANO WRITES]: As many of you might know, the chair of the commission is not a dictatorship.
>
>[MELVIN LITTLE REPLIES]: Until the National Committee came up with the Statement and had Eric Chester appointed to become Chair of the International Commission.
>
>[RAUL CANO WRITES]: it wasn’t when Mark was running it,
>
>[MELVIN LITTLE REPLIES]: I'll agree with you on that one.
>
>[RAUL CANO WRITES]: it wasn’t in the interim with Erik Toren
>
>[MELVIN LITTLE REPLIES]: Although I do find myself in disagreement with Erik Toren quite often, I think he was about like Mark Alper (and ran the commission objectively).
>
>[RAUL CANO WRITES]: and it wont be with Eric Chester.
>
>[MELVIN LITTLE REPLIES]: We differ in opinion. The fact that Eric Chester only wants to work with groups that has no ties whatsoever with the Socialist International is a sectarian and even authoritarian when he explicitly declares only the SI as a problem in the world socialist movement, without mentioning the assortment of Leninist, Trotskyist, Stalinist, or Maoist sects around the globe. This is how the statement can be interpreted. It seems that multi-tendency is thrown out of the window with the statement. The Statement is even in violation of the Statement of Principles that many "revolutionists" claim that the so-called "moderates" violates. If we are to encourage internal debate and reject dogma, then the National Committee violated the Statement of Principles with the passing of such a highly sectarian document.
>
>[RAUL CANO WRITES]: Everyone in the IC is free to vote statements and resolution down within the commission. If you believe in your position, defend it within the commission.
>
>[MELVIN LITTLE REPLIES]: I intend to do that; however, this commission is now operating under democratic-centralism. This may have me kicked out, but I insist that the role of the International Commission should be to establish links with ALL democratic-socialist-parties across the world. This includes BOTH democratic-socialist-parties which are affiliated with the Socialist International as well as democratic-socialist-parties outside the SI. This would mean friendly contacts with possibly more than one party in one country (i.e. contacts with both the Dutch Socialist Party and the Dutch Labour Party; contacts with both the German Party for Democratic-Socialism and the German Social Democratic Party; contacts with both the Swedish Left Party and the Swedish Social Democratic Party; contacts with both the Danish Socialist People's Party and the Danish Social Democrats; contacts with both the Freedom & Solidarity Party of Turkey and the Republican People's Party of Turkey; contacts with both the New Socialist Party of Japan and the Japanese Social Democratic Party; contacts with both the Mexican Social Democracy Party and the Mexican Party for Democratic Revolution; contacts with both the Democratic Socialist Perspective of Australia and the Australian Labour Party; and contacts with the United Left of Spain and the Spanish Socialist Worker's Party). Pardon the tiny list of nations with more than one democratic-socialist-parties (in which one is an SI party while the other is a left-social-democratic and/or reformed communist-party). My point is taken, hopefully. To refuse to work with the SI for the sake of purity is to engage in sectarianism and to reject the 104 years of everything this party is supposed to stand for. When Bill Pelz was our International Secretary, we had worthwhile links throughout the world. I supported the majority of parties Comrade Pelz contacts.
> And just for the record, while Bill Pelz was not really an pro-SI advocate, he was tolerant of those that wanted to work with the SI. In other words, Bill Pelz did not set up an official marriage with parties and/or organizations across the world. You (Raul) and Erik Toren do worthwhile work in Mexico and the rest of Latin America. Bill Pelz did worthwhile work with left-socialist-parties outside the SI. And to give some credence to myself, I have worthwhile ties with the New Democratic Party of Canada. The leadership know who I am. I have links with the Puerto Rican Independence Party, and I remain in contact with people with the Democratic Social Revolutionary Party of Cuba (located in Miami). And of course, I have ties with the left-wing sector of the British Labour Party (Socialist Campaign Group, Labour Against the War, and Save the Labour Party). To add a humorous aside to this, I know two co-workers from Morocco at my workplace. She and her husband are visiting family there currently, but they promise to get me some goodies (t-shirts, posters, pamphlets, and other memorabilia) from the Union of Popular Socialist Forces, which is the official SI affiliate of Morocco. My point? In order to maintain our credibility, we need to encourage our links and friendship of democratic-socialists across the world.
>
>[RAUL CANO WRITES]: David, you often make it seem that Eric achieves these "treacherous "deeds by some magical power.
>
>[MELVIN LITTLE REPLIES]: I would not say magical power, but I would say by annoying the hell of the mainstream of the party and finding unscrupulous means to "get his way." The earliest experience would be the Bernie Sanders ordeal during the 1996 election.
>
>RAUL CANO WRITES]: The fact is that votes have gone his way because many of the comrades with your political perspective have chosen not to participate in the process and then cause all types of havoc because things don’t go their way.
>
>[MELVIN LITTLE REPLIES]: I knew people from DSA and the New American Movement of the 1970s that talked about the Havoc he (Eric Chester) created. This includes his shortlived Solidarity Feminist Network in the early 1980s. He demanded that Frank Zeidler have his Chairperson Emeritus position stripped away due to his (personal/ not political) disapproval of abortion. Sounds familiar? Didn't he attempted doing this with Walt Brown last year? Who's causing havoc and disunity? Let me also add about a DSA member today living in Michigan that saw the destruction of the old Human Rights Party during the 1970s due to Eric Chester's shenanigans.
>
>[RAUL CANO WRITES]: Whether we like it or not, politics is a battle both in our Party and in the real world. Those that choose not to participate cannot complaint of the result.
>
>[MELVIN LITTLE REPLIES]: As someone that was very active in the SP for many years, I can tell you the same thing Dwight Welch said many times on the Debsian List and SocialistsUnmoderated. The SPUSA looks like a totally different party from what it was in 1990 and 1996. Back in those years (and stretching back to when the party was reconstituted in 1973), the SPUSA was a democratic-socialist-multi-tendency-party, which embraced Marxists, anarchists, religious socialists, socialist-feminists, and even social-democrats (which really means democratic-socialism). Those that followed Rosa Luxemburg, and those that followed Eduard Berstein were equally respected and allowed in the party. It was a good thing. It seems like our party was closer to the 1945 electoral victory of the British Labour Party than the 1917 Russian Revolution. Today, the party looks more and more like a Bolshevik sect. My problem with Eric Chester opponents is exactly the same problem that I have with mainstream Democrats when battling the extreme right-wing excesses of the Republican Party. Eric Chester's opponents try playing nice too much in the same way that mainstream Democrats play nice with the Republicans. I like what many gays & lesbians started saying in the last 20 years, "we're here and we're queer; get used to it!" As a social-democrat, I will say the same thing and speak for the SP majority. "We're here, and we're without fear; get used to it!"
>
>[RAUL CANO WRITES]: Even with Eric Chester gone, I am afraid that you will be faced with a new generation that doesn’t see things your way comrade.
>
>[MELVIN LITTLE REPLIES]: What way is that?
>
>[RAUL CANO WRITES]: The make up of the party has changed and even a 40 year old like me is considered part of the old guard.
>
>[MELVIN LITTLE REPLIES]: I often joked and bragged that the Socialist Party of North Carolina is like a youthful version of the Socialist Party of Wisconsin. If that's what you mean by "old guard," then I am proud to be of the "old guard." But everytime the SP takes one step forward, it takes three steps back. The SP is like America in that way; it rejects common sense to the point it runs away from it when it sees it.
>
>[RAUL CANO WRITES]: ask yourself, how many young people have joined the comrade caucus? Hell, I find it quit exciting that this type of fervor is nipping at my heels. cherish the thought comrade!
>
>[MELVIN LITTLE REPLIES]: That is irrelevant. None of the caucuses or tendencies are doing that great. The "Debsian" Tendency is noisy, but noise is not a sign of effectiveness. If anything, most people would agree with the Comrades Caucus which is the proponent of "non-factionalism." Think about it Comrade.
>
>For Bread, Red Roses, and Peaceful Revolutions!
>Melvin Little
>Socialist Party of North Carolina
>
>"I would never trade one form of tyranny for another."
>Tommy Douglas