======================================================================
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
======================================================================
I think some of this needs a slight explanation just so some things are
clear. The majority of this was originally written to a dear friend some time
after leaving PSL and ANSWER. This was pared down for general distribution to
some other people so I could explain myself more readily about events that
occurred with the PSL (Party for Socialism and Liberation) and the ANSWER
Coalition
largely in Los Angeles .
I think in gaining some
distance and perspective in reviewing things the general character of events
has become clearer. If anything it makes one question everything else more.
I have tried to attach or post
my original resignation if I can not send it on by email. I have done the same
for some threatening and harassing messages I have received. The major purpose
of this general explanation is to summarize broader concerns which did not
really fit in a politically cohesive manner when I initially turned in my
resignation. Hopefully this will cover the basics and not come out too stilted.
(Don't mind the grammar either, this was written mostly train of thought.)
Since leaving the PSL I have talked to other people in the movement who had
concerns
which were not addressed, either internally or externally. In the interests of
full disclosure this piece should serve to enlighten the uninformed. I think
providing a record of their character and actions can at least serve to shine
some light on their patterns of behavior. If nothing else this can serve as
warning to people in movements for progressive change to watch out for these
types of characters.
I will start off by saying that my
recent departure from the PSL has made me question things more as time passes
and I get more perspective. I start to question why I ever did some things in
the first place and why I went along with things that objectively now seem
wrong. You can only pin so much on hope and trust. Sometimes the hard reality
of manipulated truths or points of view -- if you can call something
manipulated a truth at all -- are hard things to deal with. These manipulations
can smack you in the face with such force they unnerve you and make you
question what you were doing all along. In a way what has happened has soured
me on certain views and assumptions and in another way I feel liberated because
I can talk about issues I had been holding in for so long.
Maybe my questioning of events was
from the beginning but then I buried my doubts inside because I did not feel it
was fair or practicing in good faith to hang on to these doubts. Some of these
doubts had a certain natural limit. Certain questions have no answer but even
when you do find the answers you may not like what they are.
The PSL has a lot of contradictory
and complicated characters who make you question what's going on with them. One
main example is the leader of the Los Angeles branch, Ian Thompson, who on the
surface might seem impressive, but truth be told I have friends who could
organize circles around him, not to mention many others. The only thing he has
on anyone is money to live in a nice big house in the Los Angeles Hills and not
have to work for a living. I, for one, have never been much impressed by
someone's wealth and I think many progressive people share my sentiment. Wealth
is certainly not an attribute I would admire or look for in the leader of what
is supposed to be a "working class" party. Another more contradictory
example who shines a light on the PSL's contradictions is this egotistical bile
spewing hypocritical person by the name of Carlos Alvarez. This guy is so full
of himself, let alone from the LA PSL leadership feeding his overgrown ego.
When his former girlfriend, another female comrade, had the audacity to dare
break up with him, he assaulted her and later tried to cover it up. He had help
covering it up from the LA PSL leadership, by blaming it on a supposed
"mental breakdown." I always thought to myself what a sad twisted
reflection of a person this guy was to the many kind and considerate LGBT
activists and people of color I have met. Whereas many other activists were
inspiring and generous this person was petty and demoralizing. The fact that
this person presents themselves as an LGBT activist or fighter of gender
oppression and is even running as a candidate for governor in the 2010
California elections on the local ballot of an avowed feminist, socialist party
like the Peace & Freedom Party just makes my mind reel.
I do not want to give the impression
I was always doubting but over time an accumulation of problems manifested
themselves and after a time I came to realize that isolated instances were not
isolated at all but a pattern of behavior that relied more and more on the
glossing over of abhorrent behavior, a lack of accountability and, coming from
the experience of a previous political split, a lot of hypocrisy and double
standards. Certain people in PSL could mess up all they wanted, especially if
you were a "leader" or in the office. But woe to anyone who would
raise even a whimper regarding criticism of said leadership and their violation
of central tenets regarding oppression, democratic practices or even as simple
a fact as someone's class background and the attendant privileges that flowed
from it. This was especially true if the people criticizing were not deemed to
be giving enough time or money. As if the merits of your argument depended on
elements which might have been out of your control, or that the contribution of
time or money was any true measure of someone's political clarity or their
character. Considering some of the stuff people have pulled in PSL I can't but
wonder who the hell they are building their party for. They sure aren't
building it for any working class I'm familiar with, because I'm damn sure the
only way anyone would put up with this behavior is by sheer ignorance of the
situation which is what the PSL leadership seems to rely on. If anything, you
can say silence and ignorance (or maybe just plain lies) seem to be one of
their favorite modes of operation. I always heard from PSL a lot of criticism
about how the leadership of other parties were ossified or that other groups
couldn't cut it and were not as good as PSL. However, all these criticisms pale
in comparison because I don't think anyone in these other groups was ever
accused of committing domestic violence against a comrade or denigrating them
as a human being, especially when they are a person of color. Whatever
criticisms existed become suspect in light of so much hypocritical behavior.
I’m pretty sure they don’t care now, but I wonder if they ever cared and stuff
like that gives me pause to reflect.
After a while and ever more
presently I began to I ask myself, what is the point? All I could end up
wondering was what's happening and why am I doing what I am doing. Who wants to
build something up with a bullheaded, arrogant, privileged, white male, with a
trust fund and a law degree who is so full of himself he thinks he can shout
you down with impunity whenever he simply feels like it and is therefore beyond
reproach? Who wants to be around an acid spewing, egotistical, serially
abusive, almost predatory, hypocrite who is unaccountable for any of his
transgressions, least of all assaulting a female comrade. (I mean, hell, the
guy used to go around the office calling a woman of short stature a midget as
if it was some sly joke.). Or there was always this thuggish and generally
reprehensible
guy named "Marcial Guerra" (aka Pedro Ramirez-Navas) who shared many
macho characteristics with Ian. "Marcial" would spread rumors and
falsehoods about people behind their back and call for their expulsion. He
would get people drunk so he could goad them into saying negative comments
which he would then snitch to the leadership, without any accountability what
so ever because, as Ian put it, he was just being "loyal." If this is
at all getting to the point where you just start wondering what the hell was
going on, just imagine what I was going through. Sometimes I wonder what was
worse, the hypocrisy, double standards and cover ups, the complete lack of
accountability or maybe even the whole Alpha male/Beta male group hierarchy
fostered
by this leadership beyond reproach. The simple fact is after questioning what I
was doing and what type of people I was working with I can only say I do not
like the answers I have come up with.
I initially started putting down
some of these facts because of something disturbing that had bothered me for a
while but I had never been able to resolve. It affected me so badly that I
actually stopped going to PSL organizing meetings for a while and started to
question what I was doing. (Part of this truancy was also a relief from petty
criticisms like people talking about my weight, skeptical nature, penchant for
critical thinking or other personal characteristics, etc.)
I explained what disturbed me to a
friend by going over an issue I used to talk to her about as a person of color.
It had to do with whether or not you knew if someone was being racist to you or
if you could tell if you were being discriminated against? Some people, like my
friend, always said they knew for sure. I some times found one of the hard
things is that I didn't always know. Not in the sense, that I never know for
sure or I never find out, but that, going into some situations, sometimes I am
not sure what is initially going and sometimes I have a hard time reading
people's cues. Obviously sometimes, and in reality the majority of the times,
things are clear. Usually its easy to tell if someone is being discriminatory
or racist and, maybe sadly, as I have aged and gained more experience it has
become even easier so that I am very rarely surprised nowadays. It is better
knowing, obviously, because then you can put up your mental defenses. While the
manner in which people treat you might be hurtful -- even the most obvious
racist still bothers me to some degree -- to a large extent any unpleasantness
is mitigated by years of experience and a toughening up of sorts. But, in the
process of growing up, learning to navigate the intricate minefield of people's
social cues, there have been times I have been surprised or taken off guard,
maybe sometimes foolishly or through naiveté. Like the first time a police
officer or security guard follows you around in a store and I realized, he's
not following me around because he thinks I'm some young punk, he's following
me around because I'm Mexican. Or when you are in a conversation with a
salesperson or stranger and you realize the tone of the conversation has
shifted and you are being treated different because that is what you are to
them, some other thing. Along with all these realizations or uncomfortable
situations, I have come to know the creeping sensation of what I call "the
feeling."
Now, I don't think "the
feeling" is anything special to me. I assume, somewhat sadly, many people
of color are familiar with it (or any other marginalized groups for that
matter). It is a sickening feeling you have in your body, sort of a twisted
feeling in the pit of your stomach reaching up into your chest like someone has
reached their hands in and ripped out your intestines because suddenly it also
feels cold. If you are standing up it becomes a little harder because the
oddest assortment of muscles in your legs have decided they don't want to work
anymore. It is the feeling of being treated like you are less of a person, it
is sickening, nauseating and stomach churning and it makes me feel a little bit
ill just thinking about it. A couple times it stands out for me the most is
when I went to some job interviews. When I realized I was being treated
"differently" I almost felt like I was going to throw up because the
feeling made my stomach twist up so bad. It was all I could do to give short
clipped responses to get out of the interviews as soon as possible. I think I
was caught so off guard in those circumstances because I assumed anyone who
sees my name on my resume and invites me in must be okay with a Mexican, but
obviously that assumption was wrong. I don't think I have had the feeling many
times in my life, as it probably averages to the same amount of years I have
been
alive or maybe less.
I guess this all a roundabout way of
saying that I have had some similar disturbing situations with the PSL
leadership. There have been at least 2-3 occasions on which I have heard Ian
Thompson
talk about a black man named John P., who was a former political compatriot, in
such a denigrating and demeaning manner that it made my stomach twist up inside
like when I had the feeling on other occasions. (I guess Ian thought since John
P. was a political enemy it was okay to talk about him as if he was some
bumbling, doddering fool or idiot who was hardly even a man.) In this case it
is almost an anomaly that I had that feeling when I was with the PSL at their
office in LA, not once but at least twice, because numerically speaking it is
about
one tenth of the times I can count and the only time I remember it reoccurring
in the same place. (I tend to not stick around any place I get this feeling.)
It is also unusual because I felt it sort of on behalf of another person. I
don't know if I would have felt the same if the denigrating comments would have
been about some other human being, or if Ian wasn't white. But I do know this,
you don't talk about a black man that way, it's just wrong and in my case I
found it sickening, nauseating, stomach churning. Why a privileged, white male
like Ian thinks he can talk about a black man that way is hard to explain.
Ian’s arrogance is certainly a place to start. He's always had this macho,
almost privileged frat boy quality to him in regards to his dealings with other
people as if he was tone deaf to the implications of his words and actions (you
could also call it TWAM). It’s complicated, because Ian talks about supporting
national liberation struggles but then turns around and is two steps shy of
calling a black man a stupid monkey. Maybe he thinks he has some sort of
immunity because of working in proximity with other people of color under him.
Who knows – I’m just bouncing these ideas off the wall because it's hard to
figure out the mind of such a complicated and conflicted individual.
I think I had started questioning a
lot of things earlier because of Ian and the leadership's arrogance. They
seemed to fashion themselves infallible, something which was obviously not true,
plus they seemed to have a tenuous relationship with the truth at best.
Whenever I mentioned being honest for the sake of it their smirks, chortles and
derisive looks left very little to the imagination about their position. But,
when Ian talked about John P. in that denigrating and demeaning manner it made
the gears in my brain start churning. You see, one of the main reasons Ian and
some of the leadership had given for splitting away from John P. and not
working with him and the WWP was because they had said he tried to hold the
racial issue over their heads. Given Ian's remarks I started to wonder what if
this happened this way instead of that way and not everything was as it seemed.
Ian's comments and general attitude seemed to strengthen the credibility and
veracity of John P's original criticisms. I remember trying to talk to Preston
Wood
about it but it was a hard topic to broach and Preston
is so enamored of Ian that anytime I moved in the direction of questioning or
criticism he would just bat away my concerns. (It was worse when I actually
heard Preston laughing with Ian about John P.
one of the times. They were chuckling about it like it was the John P. Comedy
Revue. Just for the record it's an extremely disturbing sight to see two white
men ridiculing and laughing about a black man like that, let alone when one of
them is the "leader" of the branch and the other one has been around
long enough to know better.) But, as you can see, these elements of doubt as
they grew were only heading in one direction and they have come to a head with
my recent departure from the PSL.
One of the reasons I initially left
the PSL was because I thought it was undemocratic and a violation of my rights
when Ian shouted me down at a meeting simply for trying to answer concerns to a
political point I had raised. (The fact that he was supported by the branch
leadership only made it worse.) How anyone could think that was right and not
hold him and the leadership accountable for it is still beyond my
understanding. So was the idea of forcing people to vote for unacceptable
options, but I will describe that later in brief. Suffice to say I have a
greater appreciation and perspective on what counts for justifiable with these
people, how arrogant they are and I can only wonder what exactly John P. went
through. Given what I know now and how the PSL can justify the most blatant
violations of democratic rights, bourgeois or proletariat, it only adds to my
sympathy for whatever John P. went through. The PSL always talked about how
heavy handed John P. was in talking about the national question but you haven't
met heavy handed until you have met Ian. Given how stubborn and full of
themselves Ian and the rest of the PSL leadership are I can't but wonder if
maybe John P. needed to be a little persistent in getting his point across
through their thick skulls.
Among one of the more prominent
reasons which gave rise to doubts was the behavior of a young, self fashioned
LGBT activist named Carlos Alvarez. This guy used to walk around the office
insulting people just to see their response. He would literally call people
"asshole" as they walked through the door or mock people with names
like midget or any number of general insults meant to make people
uncomfortable. This was all demoralizing behavior used by Carlos to stake out
his territory. That's not even accounting for the fact that the PSL leadership
totally let this Carlos guy get away with it to the point where they enabled
his egotistical and abusive behavior. This only helped him hype up his inflated
sense of self importance to the point that when his girlfriend, a female
comrade, decided to break up with him, he snapped and assaulted her. He then
tried to cover it up, with the help of the PSL leadership, by trying to pin it
on a "mental breakdown." Whenever I think about it in any objective
light the balance of hypocrisy and application of double standards makes my
head spin. It is more galling and hypocritical considering you get more of a
criticism of someone like that singer Chris Brown, who I just saw on the news
recently, for a domestic violence assault. A pop singer was scrutinized more in
general society and the media than someone supposedly fighting gender
oppression in a socialist group. I think most people would appreciate the dark
irony
of this situation but the people I was working with in the PSL do not and that
puts things more in relief.
The other thing, sort of related to
what I just talked about but more related to leaving the PSL in general, has
been there response or lack thereof. While I know a lot of accusations and
supplications were thrown around in previous political disputes I am pretty
sure no one was ever threatened with physical violence or harassed in such a
vile form as what I experienced from the PSL. I already mentioned this guy,
"Marcial"
(alias Pedro Ramirez-Navas), who is a thuggish enforcer type for the PSL branch
who usually does a lot of their dirty work, but is eventually always protected
by the leadership. He is quite macho and tried to treat the LA office like his
own personal stable and mount every female in sight. I don’t know if you have
ever met his type, but he is the kind of guy who is so “revolutionary” and
self-righteous that he repeatedly called for the expulsion of (up to 7) people
that did not meet his high standards. The hypocritical nature of him trying to
get rid of people who could incriminate his behavior or whom he saw as
competition, let alone those who did not meet his oh-so-high standards, once
again makes my head spin in considering why the people in the PSL ever
protected him. Considering how he used to talk about how other people
"needed to know their place" this behavior makes more sense. I’m
sorry, just thinking about this stuff gets me so riled up (and dizzy) and I did
not have someone to talk to about it candidly for so long. Anyway this guy sent
me threatening and harassing messages which I will attach or forward so you can
get a sense of what I have dealt with.
It’s almost absurd to think, but this "Marcial" character has
had the most communication with me after I left the PSL of anyone else so maybe
I should take his messages as their official response given his usual role and
the way they protect him. The silence and complete lack of a response to my
resignation only makes me think this is the PSL's pattern of behavior: to just
ignore people when they don’t agree with them either internally or externally.
It is all part of a certain method to their actions that speaks of silence and
ignorance. They think it is okay to shout down people and shut them up in total
contravention of any democratic norms and they think it is okay to force people
to vote for things they don’t want, without recourse to a democratic solution.
This has been the ultimate rub for me, as stifling discussion and refusing to
give someone a decent explanation is something that goes against some of the
most central tenets of my character. In the end it all seems like their words
of building something better ring hollow – they don't want something better
they just want something where they are in charge. I know, for myself, I didn’t
get involved in activism and organizing just to play follow the leader.
But I am still left wondering about certain answers or the lack of
accountability. People seem to have an amazing ability to absolve themselves of
their actions and rationalize their behavior. I am reminded of what someone once
told me, that people should at least have a chance to be heard or something to
that affect. Maybe I am applying to much of my situation to their words but
they practically echo my sentiment exactly. Afterall, who is afraid of a little
discussion? Who would be afraid to let people air out their issues and concerns
and let them have their due? Without dialogue it is hard to work out anything.
I will attach for you the letter of
resignation I sent to the PSL so you have an idea of the initial concerns which
brought me to my current situation. Just to recap, with a quick summary -- and
to clarify some things which have taken a certain importance based on
conversations with people since I left the PSL-- the resignation letter deals
with some basic violations of democratic centralism. In brief, I originally
raised an issue regarding an undemocratic oversight I thought should be
corrected at an internal party meeting. Namely, bylaws possibly forcing people
to vote for something they did not want. There were concerns about my
corrective proposal but I was not allowed to address those concerns when I
raised my hand (as the leadership was trying to ignore me). After about 4-5
responses
Ian Thompson, the nominal head of the Los Angeles branch, brought up a claim
which I thought
seriously misrepresented the effect of the proposal. After he finished, but
before he could ignore me and call on someone else, I spoke up of my own accord
to try to answer people’s concerns to my corrective proposal. I only got in a
couple sentences edgewise before Ian cut me off and raised his voice to drown
me out while stammering out “no, no, no, no, no.” (I am pretty sure this is
called shouting down but if you can come up with a better term for it let me
know.) As I was shocked to what happened, some of the other leaders stepped in
to back up Ian and shut down discussion and I was told I could fill out some
form to raise the (un)democratic issue at the party congress. When I raised my
corrective proposal at the congress I basically reviewed a statement I had
submitted. I was opposed by a nonsensical argument addressing a different
section of the newly proposed constitution. They basically said forcing people
to vote for a full ballot, even with unacceptable options, was part of
"full participation." When I tried to respond by asking for time to
address the issue I was denied. The only way I could get in a word edgewise was
when I asked to at least clarify something. I was allowed to clarify that the
argument posited by the PSL did not even address the correct section of the
constitution. They then magically lifted the argument whole cloth from one
section of the constitution and said it was also applicable to my proposal for
another section. I could only look on in stunned disbelief. The gears within my
brain grinded to comprehend how anyone could count as fully participatory
something that was not fully democratic. It was pretty clear that the argument
never mattered, and the outcome was already decided ahead of time. The fact
that Ian was on the presiding committee at the congress may have had something
to do with that, but who knows, it certainly did not feel impartial. That was
the end of the discussion, no one else spoke up and they approved the section
as is. If this all seems like some cruel little pretend game of mock democracy
for the sake of putting on a show then you share my sentiment, but the letter
should provide more detail.
I will just add that Ian and the
leadership have made it pretty clear the PSL is not everyone's party, not in
any egalitarian sense anyways. It's their party and if you want to be in it you
have to follow what they say like good little children and there will not be
any room for anything they disagree with ever -- not even room to debate it.
Now, I don't know about you but if their "democratic participation"
is only democratic until they disagree with you, then that isn't very
democratic at all. Who needs democratic norms and principles when everyone
agrees with one another (or just plays "follows the leader")?
Democratic norms and principles are exactly for those occasions when people
don't agree, so you can have some sort of system for working things out and
making sure that even people in the minority have a fair say. What occurred at
the internal and the following events at the congress did not even approach
that level of fairness, it was more a mockery of it.
I don’t know exactly what I am going
to do either now or in the near future. I think in the end that it is working
people’s struggles that matters most and I hope to persevere in my endeavors to
contribute to the current struggles. Watching the immigrants rights march here
in LA on May 1st I thought about how big the struggle of the working
class is and how small the PSL is in comparison. They were just another
contingent, among many other contingents, in a mass of humanity. There are so
many people and groups who have something to contribute to the struggle and
progressive change. Whether as an individual or in collaboration with any
number of groups I think I will find a way.
I am not sure where I am at with respects to the level of activism I
want to continue to pursue, but I think I will always want to contribute in some
way to the larger struggle and hopefully I can find some common ground for
collaborating with others on that front.
I’m sorry if you find this overlong, but as I told a friend I think I
was holding so much inside I didn’t realize how much it was until it came out.
This whole process has been a hard
lesson in life about the limits of participating in a political organization,
especially one whose leaders have so much class privilege or are willing to
ignore it. The idea of trying to build something up with trust fund babies and
their
hangers on looks unappealing at best when put in perspective. It’s their party
and they may think they own it but they don’t own me.
I am glad I could send this out and
despite my travails I can’t be too sorry. At least I have my principles, but
more importantly I have my dignity.
NatiCarrera
________________________________________________
Send list submissions to: [email protected]
Set your options at:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
