Hello, it’s me again
This is another article that’s been going around. I talked to some comrades up in Rhode Island and apparently the author of this kind of has some eh stuff going on and was actually kind of a jerk but still here’s more kind of evidence of what’s going on.
Notably one thing is that they say that the PSL Miami branch is dissolved. I don’t know like anything about this.
It kind of feels like live archaeology at this point, just trying to archive and document the kind of discussions that have been going on. I honestly really have incredibly little faith in the party to continue to survive and end up being the party that we need. I think a new party is clearly going to need to form.
If you have any thoughts or additional points of information that can be used to, like, bring together the understanding of what went wrong and what’s been going wrong, please put it below.
Splitting is dogshit and so are the central committee. Has anyone considered forcibly removing them? Would they call the cops to remove you if you just barred them from all areas?
I think of Stalin regularly. He did shit like this and it was based.
*According to the splitters. And I just want to point out, every one of these letters explicitly states that their goal is to dismantle the PSL and siphon off members. What I find frustrating is how they consistently neglect to elaborate on what they are going to do to build something better.
Now, I can completely understand the perspective that Eugene needed to be expelled immediately, regardless of the fact that Marissa explicitly rejected that option, and regardless of the fact that he did resign as soon as she made it clear in her resignation that she did, in fact, want that.
I deeply resent that you and others here are characterizing me and those who share my opinion as SA apologists for disagreeing with that perspective and believing that it’s not so straightforward to issue blanket proclamations on how punishment must be carried out in all instances, especially when you have a fairly limited perspective compared with those directly involved.
And I think it is also a problem that the central committee did not do this and they should step down to a lesser position to save the party.
?
If you think I am accusing you of this it says more about you than me. What exact thing did I say that caused you to think this?
Removed by mod
Oh, yeah. You’re victim blaming! Please shut the fuck up, thanks
The leadership must go because they ultimately decided to protect Eugene, and even went as far as to say he “went to therapy” as if this absolves him
So, just to be clear, is your suggestion that the process of consulting a victim, including them in the process of an investigation, and giving weight to their stated desires about the resulting disciplinary action should be considered wrong and harmful? And that describing the process or believing that it’s actually reasonable amounts to victim blaming?
Because if that’s genuinely what you believe, I completely sincerely want you to explain why.
The victim should not lead the disciplinary or corrective process. They should have input, especially in matters which relate to their own safety and well being. But not a veto on organizational decisions.
This conduct is a violation not only of the individual but of the goals, structure and politics of the org, and movement. I wouldn’t exactly characterize giving primacy to the individual victim to direct things as “victim blaming” but it is not the right way to go about things.
First of all, it isn’t fair to put the weight of that decision on the victim. Some people will have the impression that they are to blame when the consequences come down. In this situation (which is typical when talking of an org) people the victim respects and has relationship with are on side of the perpetrator. Or she did at some point, and knows others would still feel that way.
Victims are not objective, and often feel compassion. They do not want to ruin things for other people. They may be inclined to get on with life and try to let it go. I will bet you 1 gallon of diesel that the perpetrator was also abusive to those who were protecting him. At least some of them (especially women). If not already common knowledge to those close to the situation, it’ll come out in the next couple of months.
The organization itself is at fault and the organization must take action to fix the problem. It must engage in a process, which the membership views as legitimate, to make possible repairs and prevent future damage. Very important, the process should be comprehensible and visible, an opportunity for internal political development for all, regarding the correct behavior between comrades, and how this should be enforced. The process and its outcomes must be seen as binding not only on the perpetrators for their past actions, but also on the entire membership going forward. This may not be compatible with the individual ideas of one victim.
Ultimately, the formal power rests with the org to determine and implement its criteria for membership, officers etc. It is responsible to form itself in a manner most compatible with its overall revolutionary goals.
I think that the number one concern of any communist organization is to excise dangerous criminal and reprehensible actors from harming others in the communist organization, as they create endless liabilities. What the victim wants can fluctuate depending on where they are in their recovery as we can see from Marissa’s experience and from my own personal experience. I think as a victim of sexual violence, the ultimate best thing for the victim is to completely separate from the abuser and the geographic location the abuse occurred at. In an ideal world with perfect information, we would simply summarily execute or castrate all sexual abusers or find a way to preempt them.
Can the PSL be considered a feminist organization with leadership that refuses to excise predators immediately? No, they cannot. The PSL central committee also immediately went to attack Marissa rather than staying professional, which shows incompetence.
Also, I’m really not trying to deflect here, but I do take issue with the concept of “mandatory castration for sexual predators”. I fought hard to be able to receive my gender affirming surgery. I cried (sad) when it was delayed, and I cried (happy) when I woke up and began to process it. I resent the association between sexual predators and a surgical procedure that I have received specifically because I am transgender. Transphobes are already constantly portraying me as a sexual predator simply for existing. If being trans makes me a sexual predator, and it also makes me want to “be castrated”, it feels like the implementation of a “castrate sexual predators” policy is casting my gender affirming care as actually being a punishment for the crime of existing while trans.
I’m trans too it’s nonsense to say bottom surgery and making it difficult for sexual predators to harm others and get enjoyment out of it are the same thing. I want them to have zero nerves at all, bottom surgerys goal is typically to keep nerves intact. But if it’s such a gripe of yours I’m fine with just killing them
I ultimately disagree with your characterization, but I do understand and empathize with that position. As a matter of principle, I believe that people are capable of change and growth. I think that is, in fact, critical to my entire belief in the project of building socialism. That includes people who have committed acts of sexual violence. I think it’s also true that Eugene’s position on the CC made the situation more sensitive. I personally think that his initial resignation should have been accepted. I’m glad he resigned when the issue was re-litigated. But I don’t think it’s an irredeemable mistake, nor is it tantamount to concealing sexual abuse or protecting a predator, for the party to have chosen a rehabilitative process instead when that is what the affected victim herself declared would be her preference. I think we both understand that the trauma of sexual abuse makes it difficult to advocate for yourself, especially in the immediate aftermath. But isn’t it true that if the party’s policy was an immediate expulsion (let alone execution/castration) no matter what, that a victim in that scenario would be even more unwilling to come forward? Marissa didn’t want him expelled immediately, and the fact that she was empowered to be part of the investigative and disciplinary process made for a safer environment for her to come forward. I believe the disciplinary process that PSL has gives agency to survivors of sexual abuse, and I think that’s genuinely important.
these people destroy movements. i’m not against the concept of rehabilitative justice, but you don’t achieve any kind of justice by keeping them in positions of power. and you definitely don’t achieve it by asking that the victims keep quiet and keep civil around people who have victimized them. chauvinists are a liability to the movement and they’re dangerous to be around. and the fact that elements of the leadership asked her to cover it up to “protect the party” demonstrates that either their “rehabilitative justice” is just the thin blue line, or that they’re not competent enough to lead a movement. given that they didn’t discuss it at all with other members of the executive committee, i’m gonna guess it’s the former. either way, whoever was responsible or complicit in this catholic shit needs to be out, like, yesterday.
It is irredeemable for a role that demands trust.
SA is a betrayal of trust, not only of the immediate victim, but of every member of the organization.
You are talking about personal redemption, redemption of a person qua human being. That should not be confused with redemption as leader, nor with the possibility to avoid immediate consequences.