Ask Lemmygrad

He than explains that the Branch Organizing Conference was the last straw for him. He claims that Brian established a central committee in an unsuccessful attempt to change the bylaws to make it easier to become a member. That could be a good thing as it could help grow the party. There is the unsubstantiated claim about how the leadership is against base building and mass organizing. He complains for quite a while about the leadership attempting to inspire hope and enthusiasm. He also makes the claim that a young union member gave a speech about how it was more important to distribute party literature than unionize and that speech was written by party leadership. That sounds suspicious to me, possible, and not great. Even the speech was written by leadership, it doesn't really show that the party is anti-worker.

He goes on to accuse the leadership of attempting to dissuade openly, than secretly base building projects. He also accused the leadership of sabotaging 2 community centers. It isn't really clear if the leadership really opposed base building as whole or just some part the way they were building there. Then he complains about not being allowed to speak at a leadership retreat where others read speeches from their phones. Seems like a pretty common for speakers to keep their speeches on their phones, it's a little off putting but everyone has to start somewhere.

After that he complains that his loyalty was questioned, considering this letter, that makes alot of sense. Clearly the leadership didn't agree with the way he wanted to do base building. Considering that not all base building is ethical, that really doesn't prove much. Then he goes on to complain about the treatment of one of his allies in the base building thing. He goes on and on claiming the leadership will pretend to support base building and mass organizing, but behind closed do nothing but sabotage it. He mentions an unpublished document where he claims they were explicit about being against mass organizing and base building called turning to the working class. That document is not included.

After that he seems to be disparaging the PSL's efforts to make their views known. From what I've read of Marx and Lenin, that seems to generally speaking be the first step. Then he starts talking about the use of AI chatbots. While I disagree with their use, it is a kinda minor point, also frequently people are accused of using them even when they don't.

The next claim is possibly the most absurd, he claims that the US was closest to a socialist revolution in the late 1960s and early 1970s. That's would be when cointelpro was targeting the black panthers. When CIA was killing all visible socialist leaders. The capitalists had complete control over the narrative. That was the height of US imperialism, historically socialist revolution would have a hard time forming at the height of empire in it's core.

He than goes on to claim that PSL developed a surveillance app disguised as organizing network. That sounds like a baseless conspiracy theory that the CIA came up with.

Contradicting his earlier statement that the PSL members just talk about their ideas, he describes the liberation center he set up in Philadelphia. He explains that the liberation center is rooted in the neighborhood and runs various events to help working class people. After that he complains that are also used for PSL promotion. Completely ignoring that party promotion is necessary to building the revolution.

In the section called why reforming the organization is impossible he complains about the gossip culture while saying all of these horrible things about leadership. He talks about how they one thing and do another, while he describes his own duplicity.

After that in the section called why this can't wait he seems to be blaming the PSL for Trump.

The Response from the Central Committee The response starts off with a request to avoid republishing. Clearly that response was not respected.

The psl is claims that the cohert leaving is has subscribe to reactionary doomerism, against their own revolutionary optimism. Considering how much Walter complained about the peppiness of the Branch Organizing Conference, I'd say that sounds pretty honest.

The PSL than points out there are many NGOs and Unions doing exactly what he want the PSL and while many of them do good work, that is not the role has set out to play. The PSLs mission is to bring class consciousness to the masses so that they can form their own unions. To insist on leading the unionization efforts takes control away from the workers.

The PSL also points out that Walter did not have these discussions with the leadership, this can also be verified by his own words at the start of his letter. He claims that he could not bring these issues to the leadership for fear of being pushed out.

Walter was trying to do a hostile take over the Brooklyn office in secret, rather than doing any sort of organizing among the working class. All of his accusations are starting to look like confessions.

According to the PSL he resigned when he did because there was about to be a debate, where he would have been caught. That would have lost Walters all sympathy and stunted his ability to recruit other members from the PSL.

It also seems clear from the PSL's response that Walter's claim that women were constantly being complained about behind closed refers primarily to his own faction, not the leadership of the PSL.

It sounds like the faction led by Walter is actively attempting to recruit PSL members around the country. It sounds like the PSL is completely done with Walters but is work is still up on Liberation News.

The PSL response actually goes through many of Walters exact points and shows how they are either obviously false by logical contradiction, straight up lies, or mischaracterizations.

After the rebuttal the PSL response brings up all of the ways they are responding to his few valid criticisms.

Walter's letter is not well reason and seems to be more about his distaste for Brian Becker to a point delusion. The few instances he describes as leading him to his conclusion are dripping with emotional language and most are completely refuted by the PSL.