Current political issues in the Socialist Party - Part II

Sunday, 29 July 2007

Dear Matt, You can't be serious! First the Marxist/Leninist issue is a non-starter. I'm against loyalty oaths, I think the effort to "root out" the Marxist/Leninists is a waste of time. But let's not look foolish - one needs only follow the votes and discussions of the NC (to the degree this has been possible - most of the discussion within the NC is no longer running on the NC lists but is clearly occuring "off-list" by those who had a majority at the last meeting). Certainly within the Michigan SP there can't be serious question that there is great sympathy for Leon Trotsky. But that issue is, as I said, a non-starter. I'm not worried about having "Marxist/Leninists" in the SP as long as they are not playing a key role. I have a great deal of respect for Lenin and even though I'm not fond of Trotsky, I certainly respect him. There is at least one comrade in the SP who is an outspoken Marxist/Leninist and I don't have any trouble with him - he is active in the re-organized Florida SP and more power to him. On #2, you really have to be joking. A [Hammer and Tongs] that is four pages? That doesn't indicate a healthy vibrant political organization - it suggests one that is dead. In all my years in the SP H&T has often carried foolish articles but it was never a mere four pages. I credit Greg Pason for getting it out regularly - it isn't his fault the H&T is thin. It just reflects a reality in the SP. On #3, we have the same effort - and I'm not going to "name names" and personalize a political discussion - to re-define the Socialist Party so that its history begins and ends with Debs, cutting out embarrassing "social democrats" like Norman Thomas and Frank Zeidler. Come on, Matt, give me a break! (And I say this as one who has enormous admiration for Debs). On #4 - again, you really have to be joking. The struggle to overturn the convention decision rested on efforts from your state and from Vermont and Massachusettts. Chester's politics dominate Vermont and Massachusetts. Do we have to go back to the letter Eric Chester sent to a comrade in Chicago, a member of the SP and Solidarity, in which he accused her of being part of a plot to deny him the nomination? Would you ask Chester to let us all see a copy of that letter? What about the hard feelings at the time between the VP candidate, Mary Alice Herbert, and the Grassroots Tendency because the GRT folks didn't support the ticket? on #5 - I think politicallly Eric Chester has pretty good politics. The problem with Chester is not so much his politics - they are left, but (and I hate to break this to you) not so different from mine. The problem for the past ten years has been Chester's efforts to isolate, purge, drive out, those who oppose him, the struggle over the Socialist - I mean, Matt, most of those who could argue these points have simply left the SP in discouragement. (See your point #2). I am aware that to you and to a number of you who feel you are the true revolutionists, I'm really hated. And probably with good reason - I favor an inclusive SP, I don't want to purge "social democrats" - but Chester is not going to have a broad consensus if he is the nominee. If we go back to 1980 or 2000 I had broad support - in fact, in 2000, I was quite literally drafted to run. I was honored, but I would never have sought the nomination. I just don't think Chester is going to have support from a range of folks in and outside the SP. On #6, the National Committee made itself the laughing stock of any long term SP member when it suspended Michael Marino as an NC member and suspended the Wisconsin party. Again, you have to be joking. A responsible NC would have known that Wisconsin has always been somewhat a world unto itself and would have left it alone. You don't pick fights with the organization which was absolutely key to the refounding of the Socialist Party in 1973. We owe them a great debt. All you and your co-workers have done is really make a lot of folks very angry and determined to get to the convention, and to make sure the outside world takes a look at the convention, and to turn a spotlight on those of you who really are a minority in the Socialist Party, even today, even after all the resignations. #7 - A new and competent National Committee would not be wasting time on constitutional details and the wording of [the] Statement of Principles and would instead be working on an effort to make the Socialist Party a serious part of the loose left, reach out to people, be less concerned with being "revolutionary" and bashing anyone who might be, God help us, considered a "social democrat". Matt, I do appreciate the time you took to write, but I look at the leaders of the key posts - Susan Dorazio, Matt Andrews, yourself, and all of you share a narrow "revolutionary" point of view, that I don't think should be on the NC. I look at the refusal to put Rob Tucker on the Editorial Board of the Socialist, to take Steve Rossingnol off it, and you really don't seem to understand what people feel has been happening. The problem is that I don't know if anything meaningful can be done. I don't question your intentions - I believe they are sincere and committed. I just don't think you are in touch with the real world. What have we gotten from Matt Andrews on health care? 75% of Americans want action on that - but the SP isn't in touch with DSA, CCDS, Solidarity etc., on that. 75% of the country wants us out of Iraq - but while I was at the UFPJ conference and almost every other left group in the country was there, the SP wasn't. (If the Chicago SP, which is alive and well, but had been driven out of the national SP, was still in the SP they could have been there with a table, literature, etc.). Instead we have had an NC which purges state organizations, suspends members of the NC, etc. We do have people who are competent and would be helpful, who have ties to labor, to peace groups, etc. But they don't want to wade through the literally insane factionalism of which you are very much a part - and behind you, a number of others for whom you seem to be the chief "public voice". Fraternally, David McReynolds ----- Original Message ----- From: "Matt Erard" Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2007 10:16 PM Subject: Re: [debsian] current political issues in the Socialist Party Some questions for David McReynolds: 1. Who are these Marxist-Leninists who cheat, steal, and lie? Better yet, who are these Marxist-Leninists? 2. How is the SP in crisis? 3. Why would those on the far left of the SP not want to participate in a memorial for Frank Zeidler? Did those on the far left avoid the banquet to honor Frank Zeidler at the Convention in 2003? 4. How did Eric Chester lead the fight against the SP's nominee in 2004 when he didn't participate in the campaign for the referendum? 5. Which political positions of Eric Chester would lead to party disunity if he got the SP nomination for President? 6. If a state affiliate allows non-members to vote at all meetings, has non-members elected to its State Executive Committee, the state affiliate refuses to change these practices, and the Constitution prohibits these practices, what, in David McReynold's view, should the National Committee do in such a situation when the issue is brought before them? 7. What would changing the SP leadership "renew"? What kind of leadership should it be changed to? Should the new leadership follow the Constitution? Should it take the Statement of Principles into account when making politial decisions? Comradely, Matt Erard