This was originally shared by Marissa Sanchez in a note with the following content:

As I am finalizing my own response to the Central Committee’s “true narrative” about what happened to me, I am deeply appreciative of others who are taking the time to read their response carefully and assess what it reveals.

I especially appreciate this piece for calling attention to the fact that I signed the Steven Powers letter in 2020, and yet now find myself subjected to the same insinuations that I am a wrecker, a state agent, or someone whose criticisms must be understood as part of an attack on the Party rather than engaged with for its own substance.

I think there is an important lesson in that for every comrade to internalize.

One of the things I have had to reckon with from my own time in the PSL and on the NDC is how, when the Party comes under criticism, women comrades are placed in front of and made to bear those criticisms. Our identities become something the Party wields defensively against people who criticize it. I wish I had understood more clearly what was being asked of me in 2020. I wish I had thought more independently and critically about the role I was being asked to play then. It has taken a great deal of personal development for me to understand that role and to take responsibility for having allowed myself to play it.

As I said in my own essay: if PSL members can change the organization, great. I mean that sincerely. But this is one place where I differ from the hopes expressed in this piece. I do not believe the Party can be reformed by its membership in the ways this comrade is calling for.

The Central Committee’s response to me, and what I am hearing about the way I continue to be discussed in internal meetings and in one-on-one conversations with members, has only deepened that conclusion for me. Right now, rather than seriously assessing the organizational shortcomings that allowed these events to happen, Party leadership is working seemingly tirelessly to discredit me and to reinforce it’s increasingly closed internal narrative about why criticism exists in the first place.

I hope everyone following this situation will read this piece carefully. And I especially hope we will all think seriously about what it means that someone who once helped defend the Party against these very kinds of criticisms can so easily become their target when she is the one speaking.

For my part, my branch has expelled me. I'm officially no longer a party member after years of work, hundreds of hours, signing the lease on our Liberation Center, and helping to found the branch. This has hit our branch very hard; but leadership has doubled down and closed ranks.

I'm looking into other cadre orgs to join and work with, and looking to try and build an alternative here with the expectation that the party will not be able to handle this contradiction and will implode. Wish us luck 🤞

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 28 points 2 days ago (1 child)

I'm actually open to the theory that this could be partially NSPM-7 related. A common pattern in the COINTELPRO era (and beyond) is to wreck an org using real grievances and real problems and real divisions. If they're competent, the government has known about all of this for a long time, and just sat on it until the order came down. That doesn't mean that most people raising this issues are feds, it would take very little to spark something like this, and then just let things follow their own logic. More than likely the feds would stay completely behind the scenes, not out front writing documents.

And if this is an op, that doesn't really change things for me, because 1) we've all seen this pattern of failed coverups so many times, we should know it doesn't work in the first place 2) we should expect to be surveilled by our enemies and to have our (real) problems exploited in the future, at the worst time, and 3) the defense of "I was only caught because I faced unfair scrutiny" might (sometimes) work in court, but its not a viable political defense. I am extremely sympathetic to PSL, very aware of what the gov is capable of, and I still find this "its the feds fault" defense to be absolutely unconvincing, so I don't know who else would be convinced by this. I think that's why this defense is usually stated indirectly, because it's such an obviously weak excuse.

I find it completely baffling that an apparently-competent org like PSL would try to cover up things like this, instead of making the obvious choice of just removing anyone with credible accusations. Its the only viable strategy to keep the org safe. Its also, incidentally, a much better way to protect other comrades, who (if secrecy is actually maintained) would have no way to know who is dangerous and who isn't. You'd think that would also matter, but the defenders never seem very concerned with that goal, compared to the greater good of protecting the org. Just cult-like thinking. Pathetic to defend this. Worms.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 15 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

    i started this comment thinking this would be getting more attention if the feds wanted to use it that way. as it stands, even the ADL hasn't said anything about it. i'm genuinely shocked i haven't seen anything about it outside of this site. however, it seems like psl might not even last the year. if it does, i have to think it'll just be opportunists like the ones who wrote the response. i guess if the feds are getting actively involved, it's gonna be to try to prevent the PSL from ousting their wrecker leadership. seeing the way PSL members act on here, i really don't know if it's gonna be able to come back from this.

  • source
  • parent