Joanna Misnik: Fact or Fiction
(With opening commentary by David McReynolds)
I am deeply uneasy in putting this into circulation on the eve of the convention. If my life were better organized, I would have sent it on shortly after getting it from Eric on 9.12. However, in fairness to me, I was waiting until I got a copy of the Solidarity response. I have that now, and will type that in, and send it separately, shortly after this is mailed.
It will reach people too late to have any impact on the convention, but it must be part of the record. I've just come back from a wonderful evening of Jews Against Racial and Economic Injustice, about people who were doing real things with their lives, and this is precisely the sort of thing I don't want to be doing.
My problem with Eric Chester is not a personal conflict, as some think. I appreciated
the work he and Susan did on behalf of the 2000 campaign, when I won the nomination against
Eric. Nor is my problem primarily political in the usual sense - as far as I understand them, I think I share many of Eric's basic political positions.
But the problem is one of Eric himself. Those who have known him over the years, from NAM,
IS, etc., will say, when I tell them about the situation, "ah yes, we know". Chester must have his own way. The letter below is remarkable one, but more remarkable still is the fact that when the National Committee voted to censure Eric for the letter, at a meeting in Houston, both Eric and Susan Dorazio voted against the motion and to this day Eric does not understand what was wrong with the letter.
When I send the Solidarity response it will answer Eric's letter in detail but Eric could not accept the fact that the majority of the convention chose Walter Brown over him - not by a massive margin, but\ by a decisive one. And chose him not so much (in the case of Chicago) because they were in love with Brown's politics but because they had already had experience with Eric. The letter below was sent by Eric not only to Joanna Misnik, but to her employer, and to Solidarity. Why did he want her employer to see this and thus risk getting her fired!
We have seen (or at least I've seen) the problems with Eric Chester and Susan Dorazio. It shows up in The Socialist, and in Socialist Women, both of which have excluded or tried to dump those from the editorial board they felt might not be pliable. Unless I'm in error, Eric is on the Finance Committee of the SP. His group, the Grassroots Tendency, is the most secretive caucus in the SP. It has no open list of supporters. (Matt Andrews votes with Eric and Susan at NC meetings but beyond Matt it is not clear who is in the GRT, though one assumes Peter Diamondstone is). Eric succeeded in driving Bill Pelz out as the International Secretary, thus costing us the person who had much better foreign contacts than Eric - contacts reaching from South Korea to Japan to Great Britain, Holland, etc. Nothing stopped Eric from working with Bill Pelz - it was necessary to drive Pelz out of his post. And ultimately, of course, out of the SP. North Carolina, which brought the motion to censure Chester at the Houston NC several years ago, is out of the Party now.
Susan Dorazio, Eric Chester and Matt Andrews all work hard. That is in their favor. But they have found it impossible to accept a truly broad definition of the Socialist Party. This is not just the party of Debs, but of Norman Thomas as well, and Frank Zeidler, and Quinn Brisben, and Ann Rosenhaft, and many many others. (Thomas has come under relentless attack from Chester as an agent of the CIA, which I find deeply offensive).
The St. Louis convention is the first convention I have dreaded attending. It may well be my last.
And it won't be because of the political disagreements or the personal disagreements with Eric and Susan - it is because we are close to having a small political organization dominated by two people who simply will not accept divergent views.
This letter, below, remains stunning to me because Eric Chester still does not realize how much more it says about him than about Joanna Misnik. We all (or at least Eric and I) have written stupid, foolish letters. Some I've destroyed. Some I have realized later were terrible mistakes. But there is a thread of paranoia which runs through the letter below which should deeply bother those of us trying to build some kind of movement in which the words "community", "comradeship", and "human solidarity" have real meaning.
With deep regret I send this on. The Solidarity response will follow shortly.
David McReynolds
----- Original Message -----
From: susan dorazio
To: david mcreynolds
Cc: slnaphtali@yahoo.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 4:54 PM
Subject: Misnik
FROM ERIC CHESTER
David,
I am unclear why it is my obligation to provide you with a four year old document that you were provided with at the time. It is also certainly news to me that you have repeatedly requested a copy from me. We met at the YPSL reunion and you failed to mention it then.
Anyway, here is a copy. Feel free to circulate it. I wrote it to the Solidarity leadership but everyone on the national committee had a copy. It seems to me to be on the mark even now. I wrote it to Solidarity because I know some of its leadership from my participation in SDS forty years ago, and I was therefore personally and politically disturbed by Solidarity's intervention in the 2003 national convention. In particular, Dave Finkel, the editor of Against the Current, and I were in the same tendency in SDS, both of us committed to working outside of the Democratic Party. In the intervening four years, Solidarity has moved even further from the politics I would like to see advanced, so I doubt if I would bother to write a similar piece in the same circumstances.
I am not sure what the relevance of all this is to the issues before us. The Chicago group, and Joanna Misnik, have long-since left the SP. On the other hand, the issue of the Democratic Party has been placed squarely before the 2007 convention in the form of Busky's resolution. It seems to me, ironically, that my letter about Misnik is primarily relevant to the proposal by the Debs Tendency to open merger discussions with Solidarity. I am opposed to such a move because I question the entire direction that Solidarity has taken over the last years.
One final point. If we are going to excavate history, it would be good to circulate Solidarity's response to my letter. Perhaps someone in cyberspace still has a copy.
Joanna Misnik: Fact or Fiction
Joanna Misnik acted as a voting delegate to the last Socialist Party convention, held in October in Chicago. She joined with other members of the Chicago Socialist Party, many of whom are also dual members in Solidarity, to form a cohesive bloc in total opposition to the resolutions and candidates of the Grass-Roots Tendency, the left-wing of the Socialist Party. Since Misnik is a long-term member of Solidarity's Political Committee, her actions raise serious questions as to the relationship between the SP, or at least that wing of the Party that is committed to independent political action, and Solidarity.
The following points deal with various aspects of Misnik's role in the Socialist Party convention. Each point raises a serious issue, but all of them are interrelated, thus making the situation even more troubling.
1. Prior to the convention, Bill Pelz, a member of the Chicago SP and Solidarity as well, nominated Misnik as a member of the SP's national committee, its political leadership. This would have constituted a direct conflict of interest. There is no way that one person can serve on the political leadership of two different socialist organizations. I confronted Misnik at the convention with this problem. She did not deny that she was considering accepting Pelz's nomination, but, instead, she justified it by saying that Solidarity was a "weird" organization. Ultimately, Misnik did not seek the position on the national committee, but her actions in this regard were disturbing.
2. Solidarity has adopted a guideline that its members must act in a transparent manner when functioning within another socialist organization. Immediately prior to the convention, the SP issued an internal bulletin in which nominations for national committee were printed. In nominating Misnik, Pelz made no mention of Misnik's membership in Solidarity. Needless to say, he also did not mention that Misnik served on Solidarity's Political Committee. As a delegate to the convention, Misnik made no effort to inform delegates of her status within Solidarity. Far from acting in a transparent manner, Pelz, and Misnik, withheld relevant information.
3. At the convention, Misnik, with the other delegates from Chicago, voted against a resolution that would have prohibited a member of the national committee, a national officer, or a candidate from publicly endorsing or supporting candidates of the Democratic or Republican parties. This is not a theoretical issue within the Socialist Party. In 2002, much of the leadership of the North Carolina Socialist Party worked for a liberal candidate seeking the Democratic nomination for the U.S. Senate. Solidarity held a caucus meeting at the SP convention. Of course, I was not there, but I have been told that Misnik spoke at this meeting in opposition to the resolution, arguing that this was not a good time to call for complete independence from the two party system because African-Americans were rallying behind the Democratic Party.
Let us be perfectly clear. The resolution represented the fundamentals of socialist politics. Even the moderate Center would have supported such a resolution during the heyday of the SP, after it had become a mass party. Misnik's argument is nothing more than a flimsy rationalization for an opportunistic capitulation to liberal reformism.
4. Misnik joined with the Chicago SP in urging the convention to refrain from nominating a presidential candidate. The Chicago SP issued a leaflet at the convention providing its rationale for this position. (The leaflet did not present a Green Party presidential ticket as a third party alternative in 2004.) In fact, the Chicago SP had enthusiastically supported David McReynolds as the Party's presidential candidate in 2000. One reason given for this reversal in policy was the overwhelming support among liberals for an 'Anybody But Bush' policy backing the Democratic Party. This argument represents yet another variant of the same argument articulated in point 3. Instead of holding to socialist principles and differentiating a radical position from that of liberal reformism, remain silent and tacitly capitulate.
When the motion to nominate a presidential ticket gained a two-thirds majority, Misnik backed the weakest possible candidate, a 77-year-old former Democratic state senator who proudly declared himself a supporter of Norman Thomas. Indeed, Walt Brown could only gain the Party's presidential nomination with the support of delegates who opposed the nomination of any candidate, some of whom are or will be publicly supporting Democratic Party presidential candidates. Thus, Misnik, a member of Solidarity's Political Committee, entered another socialist organization, the Socialist Party, to oppose the nomination of a presidential ticket, and when that failed, opted to vote for the weakest, and most moderate, of the candidates.
5. In nominating Misnik to the national committee, Pelz referred to her as a "full-time union activist with SEIU." This is a lie. Misnik works as a highly paid functionary, in a position of considerable influence and responsibility, in Local 73, a union structure that maintains intimate ties to the Democratic Party. SEIU is a mainstay of the AFL-CIO, and the Democratic Party. It has structured itself so that its lowest unit covers a state, sometimes more. Local 73 is not actually a local. It has enrolled 25,000 members, covering all of SEIU's public sector members in Illinois, and many in Indiana. A considerable segment of the local's members are employed directly by the state of Illinois. Local 73 was a major contributor to the 2002 election campaign of Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich, a Democrat. (Chicago Tribune, July 9, 2003). This cozy relationship epitomizes the symbiotic connections between public sector union officials and the Democratic Party.
Misnik informed the leadership of Solidarity that she works for Local 73, but she indicated that it was in a subordinate position, perhaps as a clerical worker. Within the Socialist Party, she was even less honest. Full-time union bureaucrat is very different from full-time union activist.
In fact, Misnik holds the position of assistant to the president of Local 73. She frequently acts as the union's spokesperson to the press, providing a positive spin to the policies of a mainstream business union with close links to the Democratic Party. She gets paid handsomely for her work. In 2002, Misnik received nearly $50,000 in salary from Local 73. (Department of Labor).
Conclusions: Misnik's appearance at the Socialist Party convention constituted a hostile intervention by one of Solidarity's political leaders. She came to block those who sought to guarantee the political independence of the SP, and to waylay the potential for an effective socialist presidential ticket. The situation is even worse because Misnik is a paid functionary for SEIU, and is thus directly linked to the Democratic Party.
Misnik should have never attended the SP convention as a delegate. She had a clear conflict of interest and her political perspective conflicted with the Party's statement of principles. Solidarity can not avoid taking some responsibility for her disruptive actions. Misnik is a member of Solidarity's Political Committee. If the organization decides to turn a blind eye to her actions, Socialist Party members can only view this as de facto approval. Indeed, the entire Left has to question Solidarity's commitment to independent political action as long as one of the members of its political leadership maintains her tight links to the Democratic Party.
Reply to Eric Chester from the Solidarity Political Committee
[This is undated, which I regret, but would have come to the Socialist Party from Solidarity shortly after the letter Eric Chester sent to Solidarity, to Joanna Misnik, and to her employer, and which was just sent you by me. David McReynolds.
I must retype this so there may be errors - I'm typing from a copy obtained from our archives. - David McRetbolds]
It is with some astonishment and regret that the Solidarity Political Committee finds itself in the position of having to reply to bogus charges, bolstered by lies
and slanders, against one of our members, Joanna Misnik. We consider Eric Chester's actions to beneath the dignity and integrity of both our organizations. And we are confident that the SP leadership will feel as we do.
For some years now, Solidarity and the Socialist Party have maintained a policy of dual membership between our two organizations. This relationship, when it appears logical and comfortable in various areas, has generally been fruitful for both our groups. It is unique on the US revolutionary left today. And it has successfully existed to one degree or another for more than a decade. For our part, we are proud of the respectful and open way our dual membership policy has been conducted. Respect for the integrity of each other's organizations, and the points of general political agreement our two groups share have been the bedrock upon which this policy rests. This is a severe departure from the unsavory traditions of "entry", "raiding", and other maneuverist "tactics" employed by so-called revolutionary organizations of past times. This has been and continues to be Solidarity's attitude toward our relationship with the SP, as well as other revolutionary organizations.
Eric Chester's attack on Solidarity, which was mailed to the Solidarity Political Committee, and has also circulated within Chester's faction in the Socialist Party (the "Grass Roots Tendency"), is clearly first and foremost an internal struggle inside the SP. As such, it belongs mainly to a quarrel which is not ours. The scope of this response will be limited to Chester's attacks on the integrity of our organization.
In one respect, at least, Chester's piece breaks some new ground. None of us - including some whose experience extends back some decades - can remember anything like Chester's smear against Joanna Misnik anywhere in the socialist movement. This constitutes redbaiting disguised as a "left" critique to make Joanna appear as a political watchdog for the labor bureaucracy and the Democratic Party within the left. Blantant falsehoods are presented as "facts" in this shameless performance.
In attacking Joanna personally and Solitarity in general, Chester's goal is (sic) seems to be to create an external villain to exploit or (sic) his internal factional purposes. It is therefore necessary for us to briefly and bluntly state the following:
1) Solidarity does not "intervene" in other groupings on the socialist left - the SP or any other. We believe such intervention is always destructive.
2) A number of comrades are dual members of the SP and Solidarity in a few cities where both organizations have branches and congenial relations. In cases were Solidarity members joined SP branches, this was done with full knowledge - indeed at the initiative - of those SP branches. There are also some Solidarity members-at-large, or members of small branches, who are dual members of the SP in localities where organizational boundaries on the left tend to be more fluid.
3) Joanna was not nominated from the floor of the convention as a candidate for the SP national committee (as SP convention rules require). Neither she nor this Political Committee desired or solicited such a nomination.
4) "There was a Solidarity caucus as the SP convention," Chester writes. "Of course, I was not there". Of course he wasn't. Joanna wasn't there either. Nor was anyone else. There was no Solidarity caucus at the SP convention. There was no Solidarity policy on any question debated at the convention. The small number of Solidarity members who were there followed their own convictions and, in general, those of their respective SP branches. Perhaps naively, they did not anticipate that they would thereby become targets in Chester's factional war.
5) Somehow, Chester has "been told" what Joanna said at the Solidarity caucus meeting that never happened. For purposes of his internal polemic against the Chicago SP, he makes it out that Joanna argued from the right against political independence from the Democratic Party. It is apparently convenient for his factional purposes to circulate this falsehood - in order to accuse us of then sabotaging the SP's presidential campaign - but it is nonetheless a grotesque distortion. To clarify our point of view:
We advocate the strongest possible campaign outside and against the Democratic Party; in particular we hope the Green party will be such a vehicle for such a campaign in 2004 though this decision is not ours to make. Chester is on record as opposing socialist support to Ralph Nader in 2000, and we take it that this remains his view. He should make the arguement, but not pretend that other socialists who disagree with him on this point are agents of the Democrats.
6) Although, as stated above, we cannot pretend to speak for those who are the real targets of Chester's factional polemic, we will take the liberty to make a broader point about the political culture of the socialist left as a whole. On the basis of considerable collective experience, we are convinced that attacks of Chester's type poison that culture, generate suspicion and prejudice instead of comradeship and open debate, and - worst of all - repel from our movements the best global justice, antiwar, antiracist and feminist activists who must be attracted if socialism is to remain viable. This above all is why we hope Chester's method of debate will be roundly rejected, regardless of whatever views members of the SP may have of our organization.
To sum up, Eric Chester states that Joanna Misnik as a leader of Solidarity "entered another socialist organization, the Socialist Party, to oppose the nomination of a Presidential ticket, and when that failed, opted to vote for the weakest, and most moderate of the candidates". Everything about this is false. Joanna did not "enter" the SP; she joined the SP along with several other comrades at the SP branch's suggestion. She didn't join the SP "to oppose" a presidential ticket; she expressed her own view on that question when it came up. And Joanna and a few Solidarity members hardly picked the SP's Prsidential ticket - Chester, we presume, wants to claims that the SP convention as a whole "opted to vote for the weakest choice".
For our part, although we would prefer the broadest possible left unity around a Green or independent campaign, we respect the SP convention's decision and we wish the party success in its campaign and other important endeavors.
The Political Committee of Solidarity
(no date on the document in front of me, David Mc)
Go to:
Reload David McReynolds Archive
Archives Root Directory
Socialist Party of Oregon Home Page