Letter 5: National Committee to Samuel Tissot March 10

 

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: