By
David McReynolds
2009 July 22
I suspect that reality may not coincide with Marc [Luzietti].
This is a nation of fifty states, millions and millions and millions of people, and vastly differing local situations.
If what Marc is saying is that the Socialist Party should support independent electoral politics, I agree with him (and have a record to prove it). If he is really saying that anyone who "supports" Democrats should be expelled, then I think he may want to re-think that, as the SP as a whole may want to examine this.
Are we saying that SP members who voted for Obama should be expelled? (Note, I didn't vote for Obama, but I'm aware of a number of SP members who did – the result of having a broad, non-sectarian party, and the fact that in most states the SP candidate wasn't on the ballot).
Are we saying that we take no account of local situations? Clearly no Democrat in his or her right mind is going to seek the official endorsement of the Socialist Party - it would not help them. But, speaking from direct personal experience here in the Lower East Side of Manhattan, where, in addition to being a member of the Socialist Party, I'm on the board of the Mutual Housing Association, which has a deep interest in who holds the seat on City Council from this district, I know that I did support, work for, and vote for the left wingers from this district - Miriam Friedlander, who was possibly an old CP member but reliably and solidly left on all issues, most of all on housing issues, and the current holder of the seat, Rosie Mendez. Our people in the Cooper Square Association demonstrated, sat in, went to hearings, marched, and also voted. It simply is not realistic to think that the Socialist Party, which at best has five members in this District, could or should have run its own candidate.
Does Marc think that, from his position of ideological correctness in Miami, he can be quite sure what the right position is for the Lower East Side in Manhattan?
Now Marc - or anyone else - is welcome to bring expulsion charges against me for openly supporting Rosie Mendez. But to the working poor in this district, which is heavily Latino, African American, and Asian, such an expulsion would profoundly isolate people here from an appreciation of the Socialist Party.
All politics is local. Political reality is never the same at all times in all states.
Most of all, much of this discussion is pretty pointless - in a situation where the SP can't get on the ballot, do we really expect our members to abstain from political work? And do we take the same view of the Greens that we do of the two major parties? Doesn't this become a matter of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, as opposed to building a serious, broad movement for social revolution?
Fraternally,
[Editor's Note: “chegitz guevara” is the pseudonym of Marc Luzietti.]
----- Original Message -----
On
Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 3:20 AM, David McReynolds wrote:
I note Marc
feels people can be expelled for supporting Democrats. I doubt that.
Since I didn't vote for Obama, I don't need to have immediate
worries. But I know that a number of SP members did.
Fortunately
expulsions begin at the Local level, so I have no control over Marc
or Peter and they have no control over me only my Local does.
If
what Marc is saying is that the SP should not be endorsing Democrats,
I agree. And I suspect the Democrats would also agree - a Socialist
Party endorsement would rarely be welcome!
Fraternally,
David
First,
support for the Democrats is forbidden, by convention resolution.
It's not a matter of interpretation or whether you *think* I'm right
or not. The highest democratic body of the party made a decision. I
absolutely support this. Even if I didn't, I'm bound to enforce the
decisions of the convention.
Voting for Obama, except where
Brian Moore was not on the ballot is also forbidden by the
Constitution.
You cannot support anyone but the SP candidate. Personally, I think
that's a *horrible* rule, and I will be bringing an amendment to
change it at the convention, assuming I'm a delegate. Until then, I'm
required to enforce it.
Lastly, on expulsions. This is an area
in which I had thought similarly to David. Further examination of the
Constitution last year revealed I was wrong. An expulsion can start
at any level and for any reason. The SP Constitution contains no
"comrade's bill of rights." You're not entitled to a
hearing, to see the charges against you, to even be aware you're
being expelled, to an appeal, etc. It's terrible. It's
unconscionable. I will be bringing an amendment to the convention to
change this, again, assuming I'm a delegate.
As for what level
an expulsion can begin on. The Constitution says that states and
locals have full rights over membership. It also, says, however, that
any National Committee decision trumps any decisions by any other
body of the party, except the convention or referenda. Therefore, the
NC can decide to expel someone, and the state and local organizations
can disagree all they want, but the NC's ruling is the deciding one.
I'm ambivalent about this, because I really think that expulsions
should be handled at the local level, but that there are times when
the NC might need to take matters into its own hands.
chegitz
guevara
Bolshevik Beach Bum