Dear members of the
National Committee (NC),
I am writing in response
to the letter I received from Comrade Lantier on behalf of the NC on March 5. I
appreciate the time taken by Comrade Lantier and the NC with the intention of
working through the political differences that I have raised.
Unfortunately, the
content of the letter is largely false. Its assertions regarding the
circumstances surrounding my development of political differences and their
presentation to the party leadership are inaccurate. The letter also attributes
an array of historical and political positions to me that I did not defend in
the meeting held on Wednesday, February 28.
The content of the letter
is a continuation of the approach adopted by Comrade Lantier during the online
discussion with comrades Gnana and Kumaran held on February 28, during which my
arguments and positions were either systematically misrepresented or dismissed
as false without further discussion, on the basis that they were views
typically associated with Steiner and Brenner or other forces we label as
pseudo-left.
Wednesday’s meeting was
held on extremely short notice at the suggestion of Comrade Lantier and the
leadership, which I accepted trusting that it would be conducted on a
principled basis. This was, however, not the case. At the opening of the
meeting, political concerns I had shared in a phone call with Comrade Lantier
were listed off by said comrade without prior discussion, and I was immediately
accused of being disingenuous (Comrade Lantier asked after listing my concerns
“are you even serious?”).
The points introduced by
Comrade Lantier were then selected for “discussion” seemingly at random. Most
of the concerns I raised were misrepresented in order to slander me as a
“Stalinist,” “Pabloite,” and even a supporter of the Democratic Party and its role
in the genocide in Gaza! These false characterizations of my political
positions were repeated in the letter of March 5. During the Wednesday meeting,
which I had been told would be a “free and open” discussion of political
issues, Comrade Lantier also made it clear that if I did not renounce my
differences, I should leave the IC there and then.
A number of my political
concerns introduced by Comrade Lantier at the beginning of the meeting weren’t
even discussed, and just over an hour after our discussions started, he
declared that comrades were “too busy” to continue the discussion before instructing
me to “pull myself together, personally and politically,” and calling an end to
the meeting.
This unserious approach
and the lack of adequate preparation impeded the possibility of a precise
formulation and explanation of my concerns, meaning the meeting was not
conducive to any principled political discussion. Beyond the misrepresentation
of my positions, the most striking aspect of the meeting was the lack of any
substantive discussion of the political issues raised.
Before I received the
letter of March 5, I met with Comrade Cheliyan earlier that evening, who I have
the impression was meeting me on behalf of the National Committee (although I
may have misunderstood this). At this meeting, I agreed to write up my
differences so that they could be reviewed by the NC and discussed.
Given the unproductive
nature of the February 28 discussion and the inaccuracy of large sections of
the March 5 letter, including the misrepresentation of my political positions,
I request that, in line with what I had understood to be my agreement with Comrade
Cheliyan on Tuesday evening, the NC permits me to produce a more comprehensive
response to the letter of March 5 which will detail my precise political
differences with the PES and IC. I hope this document, presented to NC comrades
alongside the letter of March 5, will facilitate the clarification of the
political issues raised.
I had previously made a
request to produce a document detailing my concerns regarding the political
work of the PES on Saturday, February 24, but I was dissuaded from doing so by
Comrade Lantier. At that time he stated any such document “wouldn’t be productive.”
However, as a result of the February 28 meeting, it is now clear that a
thorough and productive discussion of my political concerns cannot take place
before I have produced a written response to the letter of March 5.
To allow the time
necessary to produce this document, I request that the NC meeting scheduled for
March 10 be delayed by two weeks until Sunday, March 24. With the permission of
the NC, my response to Comrade Lantier’s letter of March 5 will be sent to NC
comrades no later than midday on March 20.
Fraternally,
Samuel Tissot
No comments:
Post a Comment