Dear Comrade Tissot,
We are in receipt of your letter of
March 8.
In my letter of March 7, written on
behalf of the PES, I stated the conditions necessary for the holding of a
discussion of your differences with the party:
1. You accept the Constitution and political discipline of the PES.
2. You have not been, and will not be, in communication with political
tendencies, organizations and individuals outside the PES.
3. You have not distributed or made available in any way, and will not
in the future, documents and information related to internal party matters (of
either the PES or ICFI) with Steiner, Brenner, Batta, Ross and their various
political allies and affiliates (Savas, Altamira, etc.) or with any other
tendencies and individuals outside the ICFI.
In your reply, you claim to accept the
first two conditions, but explicitly reject the third, stating:
The demand that I unconditionally
assure the NC that I will not share any of my political differences or this
correspondence with tendencies or individuals outside the IC at any point in
the future, however, is unacceptable. If I were to accept this condition, then
the leadership would be totally unaccountable for any action, principled or
otherwise, that it took against me. As long as I am a member of the IC, I will
abide by its constitution and the political principles of Democratic
Centralism. However, if I cease to be a member of the IC I reserve the right to
share this correspondence and my political positions as I see fit.
We entirely reject this statement,
which is, in effect, an open declaration of disloyalty to the PES and ICFI, and
which renders your claim to accept the first two conditions meaningless. You
are stating that you will respect the confidentiality of inner-party
discussions only as long as you are a member; but once your membership has
ended – an outcome that you seem to view as inevitable and unavoidable – you
will distribute information to which you have had access while still in the
party to whomever you please, or, as you write, “as I see fit.”
This means, in practice, that you will
collaborate with organizations hostile to the ICFI. What makes this position
all the more remarkable and repugnant is that you have not, as yet, even
clearly formulated your differences with the party, let alone identified the
individuals, tendencies, organizations or parties with which you have agreement
and to which you wish to orient. The only thing of which you seem to be certain
is that you are hostile to the PES and ICFI, even before you have clearly
explained your differences, let alone presented an alternative.
Your write that that if you were to
pledge to respect the confidentiality of inner-party discussion, “the
leadership would be totally unaccountable for any action, principled or
otherwise, that it took against me.” What, precisely, are you talking about?
About what actions, “principled or otherwise,” are you speculating? Moreover,
if the actions of the party are of a principled character – as you indicate may
well be the case – then for what is it to be held “accountable”?
When you write of holding the PES
leadership “accountable,” what you really mean is positioning yourself to take
revenge against the movement.
As for the rule of confidentiality,
this is by no means unique to the PES. The signing of a confidentiality
agreement is often a condition of employment. It is a legally binding agreement
which does not lapse when the employee changes jobs. You have informed me that
you are subject to such a work agreement, and I have never asked that you
impart to the PES information that would place you in violation of the terms of
your confidentiality agreement.
It is impossible for the PES to hold a
principled discussion with someone who has declared his intention to share
information with its opponents. Under such conditions, your own conduct in the
discussion would be of a dishonest character, aimed not at convincing the PES
of the correctness of your views, but of preparing and instigating your
political break in accordance with a pre-determined factional game plan.
I have, in a previous letter,
referenced Cannon’s explanation of the principles of democratic centralism.
Permit me to call your attention to another statement, in which Cannon
described the psychology of political renegacy. Replying to the Cochranite tendency,
which broke with the Socialist Workers Party in 1953, Cannon stated:
We have to remember that the Socialist
Workers Party is a revolutionary party, and never pretended to be anything
else, and never asked anybody to join it on any other basis. We tried to keep
people in the party on that basis, and as long as they remain revolutionists,
they love the party and stay in the party and never think of leaving the party.
But when they cease to be revolutionists, as some have in the past, we noted
invariably that their attitude undergoes a complete and profound change toward
the party. They begin to hate the party, the party becomes a prison for them
and they insist on breaking out.
Your declaration that you are open to
sharing internal PES documents with the party’s opponents is a warning that you
are considering taking such a path, breaking with revolutionary politics, and
turning against the PES and the ICFI.
We again urge you to pull yourself
together, rethink your positions, and provide us with the principled guarantees
we have asked of you, so we can hold a discussion. Refusal to do so means that
you demand the right to operate as a disloyal informer inside the PES and
collaborator with the opponents of Trotskyism. This cannot be accepted by the
PES.
If you cannot accept the conditions
presented in our letter of March 7, the PES will be left with no choice but to
end your membership in the party. We hope that you will act in a principled
manner that will avoid this outcome.
Please let us know your decision no
later than Wednesday, March 13.
Fraternally,
Alex Lantier, for the PES National
Committee
No comments:
Post a Comment