Scott Solomon
2007-04-26 21:34:30 UTC
I'm going to take the liberty of posting my whole resignation letter
here. I went through a few of the letters exchanged between Joe
Hargrave and Joe Kay. I'll post it in a few parts.
Part one
haste. The mood that has characterized the whole affair pertaining to
the "Joe Hargrave question" is one of rapidity. One may speculate that
an overeagerness to come to conclusions based on limited evidence is
indicative of a flimsy method, or if not that, one which purposefully
seeks to hide deleterious facts and obscure the truth. I've been
closely examining the means which have been employed by each side
involved to defame the other. Honestly, I am not impressed inasmuch as
I am perturbed.
The first wave of issues raised by Joe Hargrave were interconnected.
They are paraphrased as follows: A) open disagreement with David North
during closed party meetings is discouraged. B) Democratic centralism
is of little importance within the SEP, and is more akin to mere
centralism around David North and the party leadership C) The inner-
culture of the SEP is cult-like, and D) there isn't a working
constitution.
Now, am I honestly expected to take a position on these statements?
Lest anyone forget, I have never met David North, nor heard him speak,
and I have never been to a party meeting, thus I am not qualified to
comment on such accusations. But, I will anyway.
This is supposedly over the political issues raised at the ISSE
steering committee meeting on
January 13 and 14. In order to review the situation objectively, as I
have always insisted from the very start, it is paramount and
absolutely essential that the audio recording and the notes complete
with minutes of the meeting be distributed to those party members
(provisional and full time) who are engaged in this dilemma-- that
consists of approximately 4 people in total: Joe Kay, Larry Porter,
Paul Scherrer, and me. So, I do not believe that there are any actual
security issues at stake. In law, tampering with evidence is an
offense; thus, the whole of documents should have been released for
examination without any editing. To an objective observer, it is still
vague and confusing what the real issues are. It's tantamount to
walking into the middle of a feud and no one will take the time to
explain the whole situation from the beginning.
In order to understand fully, and not in a one sided manner, the
accusations made, we must examine the objective evidence that exists.
It would be a grave error if our method simply relied upon the
subjective stories -- word against word -- of each side involved. To
an objective observer it is never enough to merely hear the stories;
evidence is needed to make a case: pictures, reports, etc. But we are
in luck because there exists an audio recording! However, these will
never be released because of the damning evidence inherent in them. On
the subject of each side's political views, it will suffice to examine
the written declarations presented in the following documents.
Joe Hargrave's original letter
"Now that I have had a few days to think about what transpired at the
steering committee meeting, I have come to a decision about my future
in the party. I want to resign from the party. Although I am still in
pretty much full theoretical agreement, I have lost all confidence in
the leadership, particularly that of David North. The manner in which
he conducted himself over the course of the weekend was unbecoming of
his position. And the manner in which you and some of the other party
members attempted to address the situation, namely by repeatedly
telling me not to 'take it personally' tells me something else about
the nature of the party; namely, that this sort of behavior is, if not
routine, something to be expected at any given time. We must always be
prepared to be publicly abused by DN if we make a point or ask a
question he doesn't like, and to not 'take it personally'. In other
words, you expect that his behavior will be seen as offensive, and so
you try to preempt that."
Joe has stated that he is in pretty much full theoretical agreement
with the party. I suspect this is why he dedicated multiple years of
his life and countless amounts of money, as well. If Joe wants to
leave the party, then fine. He is free to do so.
"I understand, as much as any Marxist, the necessity of combating what
we understand to be bourgeois ideology."
I agree. It is paramount that Bourgeois ideology is decimated.
"But a party is more than the sum of its observations, hypotheses, and
theories. It is comprised of people too."
I also agree here. Socialist consciousness will not arise from within
the working class spontaneously, it must be fought for from without. A
revolutionary socialist party is the only force capable of doing this,
and a party must be made up of capable people who are able to relate
and educate the working class. Party members and leaders must always
be constantly striving to come up with innovative and refreshing
techniques to educate the working class. Educating workers on
socialism isn't a mathematical formula where you paste in random party
rhetoric, and out comes revolutionary socialists.
In 1935 Trotsky wrote, "Marxism has built a scientific program upon
the laws that govern the movement of capitalist society and were
discovered by it. This is a colossal conquest! However, it is not
enough to create a correct program (my emphasis added - P.G.). It is
necessary for the working class to accept it. But the sectarian, in
the nature of things, comes to a stop upon the first half of the task.
Active intervention into the actual struggle of the masses of workers
is supplanted for him by propagandistic abstractions of a Marxist
program." (Writings of Leon Trotsky, 1935-36 [New York: Pathfinder,
1977]. pp. 152-53)
Now, what it means to "intervene in an actual struggle" is a question
that could fill volumes. I believe that Trotsky means revolutionaries
must submerse themselves in worker's movements and fight from their
perspective, not from the sidelines. I don't think that writing up
statements and handing them to workers is truly intervening in a
struggle. There must be more that could be done. We must never keep
ourselves from discussions with workers, especially with the pretense
of remaining "pure." No, as both Lenin and Marx said, there is no easy
path to science. Lenin advocated patient explanation with even the
most backward worker. I do, too. To claim that talking with people who
belong to other organizations is off limits is completely ridiculous.
That is sectarianism at its finest. Discussion does not mean
compromise in principles. To claim that ideological differences have
been hammered out in the past, and therefore no longer deserve
attention is tantamount to claiming that there are no longer political
struggles today which were directly influenced by those past questions
and subsequent answers given by various parties. Lenin said in What is
to be Done?, "Nothing is so ridiculous and harmful as pretending that
we are "old hands" who have long ago experienced all the decisive
stages of the struggle." Various people come to the movement through
different outlets, and they have differing amounts of knowledge and
consciousness - this is indisputable.
"And even if I had actually said something that was dead wrong,
offensive even (and my half-sentence before I was cut off was quite
far from that), he could have addressed it in any number of ways. That
he chose to address it the way he did, combined with the way he acted
towards me the night before, indicates a definite tendency to me.
After all, it was he himself who quoted Trotsky - 'once a mistake,
twice a tendency'.<
Let's consider what actually happened: I had barely gotten 10 words
out of my mouth before he cut me off. His tone was, in my view,
hostile and malicious. You mentioned to me when we broke for lunch
that he is really good at seeing the implications of a line of
thought; I can see implications too."
I see no problem wrong with disagreement. Disagreements should be
discussed. However, as comrades there is absolutely no reason why a
party member should be disrespected and treated in a hostile way for
potentially having a difference. If David North were really truly
interested in educating Joe Hargrave, he would have heard him out
without interrupting, and then calmly addressed his points. This would
have undoubtedly rectified whatever problem was brought up (since I'm
unaware what that actually was due to the notes or audio files being
released). If Joe Hargrave lacked direction, it could have been given
through some patient explanation.
Trotksy in the aforementioned work cited states further, "The
sectarian looks upon the life of society as a great school, with
himself as a teacher there. In his opinion the working class should
put aside its less important matters, and assemble in solid rank
around his rostrum. Then the task would be solved."
Joe Hargrave should not be asking dangerous questions about other
organizations. He should merely listen and learn from everything the
teacher -- David North -- says.
"The mantra of "don't take it personally" comes with a few
implications and assumptions of its own. First of all, the assumption
that I was some how emotionally scarred by what happened. To the
extent I make this "personal", it is about DN as a person and a
leader, and not my feelings."
So, as we see, this is not about Joe Hargrave's feelings and
subjective reaction as Joe Kay claims. It is about David North and the
way he treats party members.
"Why is it that you [Joe Kay], Nick, the comrade from Delaware and
Larry Roberts all told me this? Because I looked upset? Disappointed?
Or perhaps because you all saw how offensive this behavior was and
were looking for a way to justify it? What does that say about the
party as an organization, and the relationship between the membership
and leadership?"
I wonder this too! My experience with the "leadership" hasn't been so
enthralling either. People aren't robots who accept every piece of
shit you feed them. They have an organ of consciousness called the
brain - and they use it!
"Secondly, the way I was treated, I may as well have been someone you
just pulled in off the street. Is there a justification for failing to
accord a comrade who has spent much time, effort, and his own personal
funds to build a student club for the last three years some basic
decency and respect?"
Personally, I can't say I'd want to be treated as a person who is
indecent and not deserving of respect.
"I managed to bring three new people to the party, not to mention
those who I referred to the website and who never received responses,
and had prospective candidates lined up that I was going to put in
contact with the website. I don't want to overplay my contributions. I
could have written more for the website. But that aside, I devoted
countless hours and hundreds of dollars to building a presence for the
SEP in my area. I canceled a meeting we had planned for months and had
already started publicly promoting when you said that DN wanted to
give a talk at ASU."
Indeed, Joe worked hard for the party when he was a member. I also
have had the misfortune of referring comrades to the website, and they
haven't gotten replies. But to reply to people in a respectable amount
of time is opportunist, I suppose.
"So at what point do I get to say something that DN doesn't agree with
at a meeting without being treated like a private at boot camp? When
you invite me to be a part of a steering committee, a basic level of
theoretical agreement should be assumed. At the least it should be
assumed that what I say isn't in a spirit of hostility or even debate.
So what if I question the perspective put forth by DN or heaven
forbid, disagree? Why should I or anyone who was in that room ever
want to express disagreement ever again? No matter how "dangerous" the
thought expressed may appear, I should be able to express it without
being attacked by the party leader in the open."
Now, I've said that I didn't want to comment on how Joe Hargrave was
treated because I wasn't there. But based on the fact that the
recordings were purposefully kept from me (clear honesty for the
working class?), and the way in which I was treated when I expressed
my views (on Joe Kay being socially inept and pompous, ways to conduct
propaganda, et al) I do not doubt at all that Joe Hargrave was treated
like a piece of shit.
I don't think that Joe should have been attacked. It was a closed, not
open, party meeting. However, criticisms are allowed on both sides. It
isn't a one way street.
"The underlying message of his outburst, and the way he interacted
with me the night before, was that if you actually do have a point of
contention with what is said, you can expect to be publicly debased. I
mean, what was his fear? That everyone else in the room would suddenly
jump on my "adaptationist" bandwagon and turn the SEP into the ISO?
No, that would be quite ridiculous, don't you think? Or was his
concern for me personally? Given his tone, that would be unbelievable
- that is not how you address a comrade who you think has made a
mistake and requires direction. Rather his tone was the sort one takes
with a political enemy, with an actual member of the ISO or some other
group. In fact, such people who write into the website with their
objections are treated with more courtesy and respect than I was!
Don't take it personally?"
I'm with Joe Hargrave on this.
"Although in truth, I did not argue for "adaptationism", nor did I
even contest a single point DN made, nor would I have had I been
allowed to finish."
This is such an interesting statement. Joe didn't disagree with
anything David North said! Mmmm. Is that because every "criticism" the
SEP has attributed to Joe H. has missed the target completely?
"All I wanted to do was make sure that what was said the day before,
by a number of people, wasn't misconstrued. The things I said came out
not quite as I had wanted them to. But before I could correct myself,
as one ought to have the chance to do in a discussion, DN cut me off
and launched into his tirade. And then you all circled the wagons and
rushed up to me with your justifications for what had happened. "This
is about ideas, and not you as a person", you said. "Sometimes things
get heated", Larry said. If anything, the role of a leader should be
to cool down heated tempers when they flare up between comrades, not
to engage in hostilities himself!"
Can't say I disagree. There comes a point where after you've been
treated in a disrespectful manner, it's not worth making your position
clear to those mistreating you.
"Did you notice how he mentioned that I ought to 'stop hanging around'
Spartacist League members - as if I ever had? Let me tell you why he
said that. The night before at the party at Larry's house, I asked him
about their positions on deformed workers states, because I had a
discussion with some of their members when they came to my campus (as
they do, once a year, on their subscription drives - there are no
Sparts in Phoenix). It was a one time thing, and I told him that.
Frankly I got the impression that these were questions better left
unasked. But then, of course, the next day, while he was going off on
me, he brought up once again this notion that I was congregating with
these people. Here I thought I could ask him for some insights on the
positions of this group, and instead, he uses the fact that I had a
discussion with them one or two times, somehow translating that into
a) I "hang around" with them (which isn't true) and b) that this was
at the root of what I had said on the topic at hand. As if I am
incapable of thinking for myself, as if I ate the fruit of some
poisoned tree and am now tainted. Additionally, since when are there
prohibitions on who we can and can't have discussions with? What if my
brother or cousin was a Spart - then what? Should I take them off the
Christmas list?"
According to the Word Socialist Web Site itself (Andre Damon),
"Students who find themselves in opposition to the political status
quo will invariably come into contact with the sundry left-radical
organizations operating on campuses." When conducting political work
it is impossible to not come into contact with rival groups - this is
a fact. Anyone who has attended a demonstration knows this. These are
important questions that Joe Hargrave asked. The fact that he didn't
give an honest, straight forward answer to Joe's questions, but rather
got defensive, indicates a degree of paranoia on David North's part.
If this is how all of the leadership acts, then there are certainly
diseased elements present which need purged. It is clear to me that
the SEP does in fact not want anyone in their party to have any
contact or exposure to other socialist groups. This is claimed to be
because of "a fundamental differences in principles." Why doesn't the
SEP has critiques of the rival organizations and their theoretical
differences available then?
"The point I raised at the meeting and the questions I asked him about
the Sparts positions on deformed workers states had absolutely nothing
to do with one another. I mean, why would I be arguing for some sort
of "adaptationism" if I have been somehow "corrupted" by a tendency
that is one of the most sectarian in the world? The thoughts I
expressed at the meeting were, once again, only related to what was
said at the meeting the day before. Any honest person would have
understood that. Instead DN assumed I was a liar (or wasn't listening
to me at all, which is not much worse) when I told him that I only
talked to the Sparts once or twice, and in front of everyone made the
grand revelation that my political sins were the result of my
congregation with the unfaithful. Don't take it personally?"
Again, I'm with Joe Hargrave on this one.
"My experiences with the party this weekend present implications not
only about DN but about the party as a whole. It seems to believe that
the sharpness and clarity of an objective analysis justifies the most
offensive rebukes. Or that any attempt to make a broader appeal, to
employ different tactics, tactics that may actually work, is
"opportunist" - and that the possibility that a person, like me, could
employ these tactics without abandoning doctrine or theory is out of
the question, as if I were the next Pablo or something. As I said, I
have no confidence in DN as a leader, or in those who defend and
apologize for his terrible behavior, I don't want to be a part of an
organization that he is the national secretary of, and I ask that you
remove me as a member of the party. As for the ISSE at ASU, I will
either hand it over to Blake, or, in the more than likely event that
he will not be able to manage it, disband it. I'm sorry it has to end
this way. But I'm simply not interested in a "discussion" where you
explain why I am wrong to interpret DN's behavior in the way that I
do."
My last experiences with the party were also characterized by
hostility. I'm not sure exactly what Joe Hargrave's tactics are,
though. This is something I will examine though. I, however, will not
speculate. I will ask him for myself.
here. I went through a few of the letters exchanged between Joe
Hargrave and Joe Kay. I'll post it in a few parts.
Part one
From the start.
I do not, and will never, gloss over important political questions inhaste. The mood that has characterized the whole affair pertaining to
the "Joe Hargrave question" is one of rapidity. One may speculate that
an overeagerness to come to conclusions based on limited evidence is
indicative of a flimsy method, or if not that, one which purposefully
seeks to hide deleterious facts and obscure the truth. I've been
closely examining the means which have been employed by each side
involved to defame the other. Honestly, I am not impressed inasmuch as
I am perturbed.
The first wave of issues raised by Joe Hargrave were interconnected.
They are paraphrased as follows: A) open disagreement with David North
during closed party meetings is discouraged. B) Democratic centralism
is of little importance within the SEP, and is more akin to mere
centralism around David North and the party leadership C) The inner-
culture of the SEP is cult-like, and D) there isn't a working
constitution.
Now, am I honestly expected to take a position on these statements?
Lest anyone forget, I have never met David North, nor heard him speak,
and I have never been to a party meeting, thus I am not qualified to
comment on such accusations. But, I will anyway.
This is supposedly over the political issues raised at the ISSE
steering committee meeting on
January 13 and 14. In order to review the situation objectively, as I
have always insisted from the very start, it is paramount and
absolutely essential that the audio recording and the notes complete
with minutes of the meeting be distributed to those party members
(provisional and full time) who are engaged in this dilemma-- that
consists of approximately 4 people in total: Joe Kay, Larry Porter,
Paul Scherrer, and me. So, I do not believe that there are any actual
security issues at stake. In law, tampering with evidence is an
offense; thus, the whole of documents should have been released for
examination without any editing. To an objective observer, it is still
vague and confusing what the real issues are. It's tantamount to
walking into the middle of a feud and no one will take the time to
explain the whole situation from the beginning.
In order to understand fully, and not in a one sided manner, the
accusations made, we must examine the objective evidence that exists.
It would be a grave error if our method simply relied upon the
subjective stories -- word against word -- of each side involved. To
an objective observer it is never enough to merely hear the stories;
evidence is needed to make a case: pictures, reports, etc. But we are
in luck because there exists an audio recording! However, these will
never be released because of the damning evidence inherent in them. On
the subject of each side's political views, it will suffice to examine
the written declarations presented in the following documents.
Joe Hargrave's original letter
"Now that I have had a few days to think about what transpired at the
steering committee meeting, I have come to a decision about my future
in the party. I want to resign from the party. Although I am still in
pretty much full theoretical agreement, I have lost all confidence in
the leadership, particularly that of David North. The manner in which
he conducted himself over the course of the weekend was unbecoming of
his position. And the manner in which you and some of the other party
members attempted to address the situation, namely by repeatedly
telling me not to 'take it personally' tells me something else about
the nature of the party; namely, that this sort of behavior is, if not
routine, something to be expected at any given time. We must always be
prepared to be publicly abused by DN if we make a point or ask a
question he doesn't like, and to not 'take it personally'. In other
words, you expect that his behavior will be seen as offensive, and so
you try to preempt that."
Joe has stated that he is in pretty much full theoretical agreement
with the party. I suspect this is why he dedicated multiple years of
his life and countless amounts of money, as well. If Joe wants to
leave the party, then fine. He is free to do so.
"I understand, as much as any Marxist, the necessity of combating what
we understand to be bourgeois ideology."
I agree. It is paramount that Bourgeois ideology is decimated.
"But a party is more than the sum of its observations, hypotheses, and
theories. It is comprised of people too."
I also agree here. Socialist consciousness will not arise from within
the working class spontaneously, it must be fought for from without. A
revolutionary socialist party is the only force capable of doing this,
and a party must be made up of capable people who are able to relate
and educate the working class. Party members and leaders must always
be constantly striving to come up with innovative and refreshing
techniques to educate the working class. Educating workers on
socialism isn't a mathematical formula where you paste in random party
rhetoric, and out comes revolutionary socialists.
In 1935 Trotsky wrote, "Marxism has built a scientific program upon
the laws that govern the movement of capitalist society and were
discovered by it. This is a colossal conquest! However, it is not
enough to create a correct program (my emphasis added - P.G.). It is
necessary for the working class to accept it. But the sectarian, in
the nature of things, comes to a stop upon the first half of the task.
Active intervention into the actual struggle of the masses of workers
is supplanted for him by propagandistic abstractions of a Marxist
program." (Writings of Leon Trotsky, 1935-36 [New York: Pathfinder,
1977]. pp. 152-53)
Now, what it means to "intervene in an actual struggle" is a question
that could fill volumes. I believe that Trotsky means revolutionaries
must submerse themselves in worker's movements and fight from their
perspective, not from the sidelines. I don't think that writing up
statements and handing them to workers is truly intervening in a
struggle. There must be more that could be done. We must never keep
ourselves from discussions with workers, especially with the pretense
of remaining "pure." No, as both Lenin and Marx said, there is no easy
path to science. Lenin advocated patient explanation with even the
most backward worker. I do, too. To claim that talking with people who
belong to other organizations is off limits is completely ridiculous.
That is sectarianism at its finest. Discussion does not mean
compromise in principles. To claim that ideological differences have
been hammered out in the past, and therefore no longer deserve
attention is tantamount to claiming that there are no longer political
struggles today which were directly influenced by those past questions
and subsequent answers given by various parties. Lenin said in What is
to be Done?, "Nothing is so ridiculous and harmful as pretending that
we are "old hands" who have long ago experienced all the decisive
stages of the struggle." Various people come to the movement through
different outlets, and they have differing amounts of knowledge and
consciousness - this is indisputable.
"And even if I had actually said something that was dead wrong,
offensive even (and my half-sentence before I was cut off was quite
far from that), he could have addressed it in any number of ways. That
he chose to address it the way he did, combined with the way he acted
towards me the night before, indicates a definite tendency to me.
After all, it was he himself who quoted Trotsky - 'once a mistake,
twice a tendency'.<
Let's consider what actually happened: I had barely gotten 10 words
out of my mouth before he cut me off. His tone was, in my view,
hostile and malicious. You mentioned to me when we broke for lunch
that he is really good at seeing the implications of a line of
thought; I can see implications too."
I see no problem wrong with disagreement. Disagreements should be
discussed. However, as comrades there is absolutely no reason why a
party member should be disrespected and treated in a hostile way for
potentially having a difference. If David North were really truly
interested in educating Joe Hargrave, he would have heard him out
without interrupting, and then calmly addressed his points. This would
have undoubtedly rectified whatever problem was brought up (since I'm
unaware what that actually was due to the notes or audio files being
released). If Joe Hargrave lacked direction, it could have been given
through some patient explanation.
Trotksy in the aforementioned work cited states further, "The
sectarian looks upon the life of society as a great school, with
himself as a teacher there. In his opinion the working class should
put aside its less important matters, and assemble in solid rank
around his rostrum. Then the task would be solved."
Joe Hargrave should not be asking dangerous questions about other
organizations. He should merely listen and learn from everything the
teacher -- David North -- says.
"The mantra of "don't take it personally" comes with a few
implications and assumptions of its own. First of all, the assumption
that I was some how emotionally scarred by what happened. To the
extent I make this "personal", it is about DN as a person and a
leader, and not my feelings."
So, as we see, this is not about Joe Hargrave's feelings and
subjective reaction as Joe Kay claims. It is about David North and the
way he treats party members.
"Why is it that you [Joe Kay], Nick, the comrade from Delaware and
Larry Roberts all told me this? Because I looked upset? Disappointed?
Or perhaps because you all saw how offensive this behavior was and
were looking for a way to justify it? What does that say about the
party as an organization, and the relationship between the membership
and leadership?"
I wonder this too! My experience with the "leadership" hasn't been so
enthralling either. People aren't robots who accept every piece of
shit you feed them. They have an organ of consciousness called the
brain - and they use it!
"Secondly, the way I was treated, I may as well have been someone you
just pulled in off the street. Is there a justification for failing to
accord a comrade who has spent much time, effort, and his own personal
funds to build a student club for the last three years some basic
decency and respect?"
Personally, I can't say I'd want to be treated as a person who is
indecent and not deserving of respect.
"I managed to bring three new people to the party, not to mention
those who I referred to the website and who never received responses,
and had prospective candidates lined up that I was going to put in
contact with the website. I don't want to overplay my contributions. I
could have written more for the website. But that aside, I devoted
countless hours and hundreds of dollars to building a presence for the
SEP in my area. I canceled a meeting we had planned for months and had
already started publicly promoting when you said that DN wanted to
give a talk at ASU."
Indeed, Joe worked hard for the party when he was a member. I also
have had the misfortune of referring comrades to the website, and they
haven't gotten replies. But to reply to people in a respectable amount
of time is opportunist, I suppose.
"So at what point do I get to say something that DN doesn't agree with
at a meeting without being treated like a private at boot camp? When
you invite me to be a part of a steering committee, a basic level of
theoretical agreement should be assumed. At the least it should be
assumed that what I say isn't in a spirit of hostility or even debate.
So what if I question the perspective put forth by DN or heaven
forbid, disagree? Why should I or anyone who was in that room ever
want to express disagreement ever again? No matter how "dangerous" the
thought expressed may appear, I should be able to express it without
being attacked by the party leader in the open."
Now, I've said that I didn't want to comment on how Joe Hargrave was
treated because I wasn't there. But based on the fact that the
recordings were purposefully kept from me (clear honesty for the
working class?), and the way in which I was treated when I expressed
my views (on Joe Kay being socially inept and pompous, ways to conduct
propaganda, et al) I do not doubt at all that Joe Hargrave was treated
like a piece of shit.
I don't think that Joe should have been attacked. It was a closed, not
open, party meeting. However, criticisms are allowed on both sides. It
isn't a one way street.
"The underlying message of his outburst, and the way he interacted
with me the night before, was that if you actually do have a point of
contention with what is said, you can expect to be publicly debased. I
mean, what was his fear? That everyone else in the room would suddenly
jump on my "adaptationist" bandwagon and turn the SEP into the ISO?
No, that would be quite ridiculous, don't you think? Or was his
concern for me personally? Given his tone, that would be unbelievable
- that is not how you address a comrade who you think has made a
mistake and requires direction. Rather his tone was the sort one takes
with a political enemy, with an actual member of the ISO or some other
group. In fact, such people who write into the website with their
objections are treated with more courtesy and respect than I was!
Don't take it personally?"
I'm with Joe Hargrave on this.
"Although in truth, I did not argue for "adaptationism", nor did I
even contest a single point DN made, nor would I have had I been
allowed to finish."
This is such an interesting statement. Joe didn't disagree with
anything David North said! Mmmm. Is that because every "criticism" the
SEP has attributed to Joe H. has missed the target completely?
"All I wanted to do was make sure that what was said the day before,
by a number of people, wasn't misconstrued. The things I said came out
not quite as I had wanted them to. But before I could correct myself,
as one ought to have the chance to do in a discussion, DN cut me off
and launched into his tirade. And then you all circled the wagons and
rushed up to me with your justifications for what had happened. "This
is about ideas, and not you as a person", you said. "Sometimes things
get heated", Larry said. If anything, the role of a leader should be
to cool down heated tempers when they flare up between comrades, not
to engage in hostilities himself!"
Can't say I disagree. There comes a point where after you've been
treated in a disrespectful manner, it's not worth making your position
clear to those mistreating you.
"Did you notice how he mentioned that I ought to 'stop hanging around'
Spartacist League members - as if I ever had? Let me tell you why he
said that. The night before at the party at Larry's house, I asked him
about their positions on deformed workers states, because I had a
discussion with some of their members when they came to my campus (as
they do, once a year, on their subscription drives - there are no
Sparts in Phoenix). It was a one time thing, and I told him that.
Frankly I got the impression that these were questions better left
unasked. But then, of course, the next day, while he was going off on
me, he brought up once again this notion that I was congregating with
these people. Here I thought I could ask him for some insights on the
positions of this group, and instead, he uses the fact that I had a
discussion with them one or two times, somehow translating that into
a) I "hang around" with them (which isn't true) and b) that this was
at the root of what I had said on the topic at hand. As if I am
incapable of thinking for myself, as if I ate the fruit of some
poisoned tree and am now tainted. Additionally, since when are there
prohibitions on who we can and can't have discussions with? What if my
brother or cousin was a Spart - then what? Should I take them off the
Christmas list?"
According to the Word Socialist Web Site itself (Andre Damon),
"Students who find themselves in opposition to the political status
quo will invariably come into contact with the sundry left-radical
organizations operating on campuses." When conducting political work
it is impossible to not come into contact with rival groups - this is
a fact. Anyone who has attended a demonstration knows this. These are
important questions that Joe Hargrave asked. The fact that he didn't
give an honest, straight forward answer to Joe's questions, but rather
got defensive, indicates a degree of paranoia on David North's part.
If this is how all of the leadership acts, then there are certainly
diseased elements present which need purged. It is clear to me that
the SEP does in fact not want anyone in their party to have any
contact or exposure to other socialist groups. This is claimed to be
because of "a fundamental differences in principles." Why doesn't the
SEP has critiques of the rival organizations and their theoretical
differences available then?
"The point I raised at the meeting and the questions I asked him about
the Sparts positions on deformed workers states had absolutely nothing
to do with one another. I mean, why would I be arguing for some sort
of "adaptationism" if I have been somehow "corrupted" by a tendency
that is one of the most sectarian in the world? The thoughts I
expressed at the meeting were, once again, only related to what was
said at the meeting the day before. Any honest person would have
understood that. Instead DN assumed I was a liar (or wasn't listening
to me at all, which is not much worse) when I told him that I only
talked to the Sparts once or twice, and in front of everyone made the
grand revelation that my political sins were the result of my
congregation with the unfaithful. Don't take it personally?"
Again, I'm with Joe Hargrave on this one.
"My experiences with the party this weekend present implications not
only about DN but about the party as a whole. It seems to believe that
the sharpness and clarity of an objective analysis justifies the most
offensive rebukes. Or that any attempt to make a broader appeal, to
employ different tactics, tactics that may actually work, is
"opportunist" - and that the possibility that a person, like me, could
employ these tactics without abandoning doctrine or theory is out of
the question, as if I were the next Pablo or something. As I said, I
have no confidence in DN as a leader, or in those who defend and
apologize for his terrible behavior, I don't want to be a part of an
organization that he is the national secretary of, and I ask that you
remove me as a member of the party. As for the ISSE at ASU, I will
either hand it over to Blake, or, in the more than likely event that
he will not be able to manage it, disband it. I'm sorry it has to end
this way. But I'm simply not interested in a "discussion" where you
explain why I am wrong to interpret DN's behavior in the way that I
do."
My last experiences with the party were also characterized by
hostility. I'm not sure exactly what Joe Hargrave's tactics are,
though. This is something I will examine though. I, however, will not
speculate. I will ask him for myself.