Having long considered the mistakes I have made as it relates to the affair of Mazal’s abrupt departure from Unity—Struggle—Unity and the circumstances surrounding it, I submit this self-criticism of my engagement in the ultimately disastrous “mediation” attempt that led to the final breakdown of good faith between Mazal and the Press.
I would be remiss if I did not begin this analysis with the strengths of Comrade Mazal and the ways in which the Press has been impoverished by her absence — although, ultimately, an absence of her own design. She was one of the most theoretically developed and analytically gifted comrades I have ever worked with. Her acumen at immediately grasping the sharp edge of a point and using it to determine the forces at play was invaluable.
Unfortunately, although she was a gifted theoretician, she was not a gifted organizer. We all have unevenness in our development. As I strive today to balance mine and develop the skills necessary to carry forward the fight, I am of the firm belief that she, too, carries forward her own development.
To the matter at hand: subsequent to the breakdown which caused Mazal to exit the Press spaces and issue a demand that the entire organization submit to her points of contention or suffer her indefinite absence, Cde. Sylveste spontaneously volunteered, for the good of the Press, to mediate the disagreement that was primarily the result of a personality conflict between myself and Mazal. I reluctantly agreed, pointing out that the biggest issues would be her self-criticism in the way she attempted to hold the Press hostage.
When the mediation occurred, I did not speak up to direct it. Mazal was given an opportunity to air her grievances against me. She declined and instead asked to hear about why I had spitefully remarked that she must not like my writing style after she exited the Press spaces. At this point, I should have remembered the methodology of constructive struggle and refused to engage in a personal debate. For me, the issue of whether or not Mazal liked my writing or whether or not she was hyper-critical of others was not one that threatened to undermine the functioning of the Press, and was something that I had been willing and was then willing to overlook. To properly engage in constructive struggle, I should have told both Cde. Sylveste and Mazal that this discussion — my writing — would be a productive inquiry and instead directed to the heart of the matter: Mazal’s behavior in exiting the Press.
By failing to do this I deprived Mazal of a critical ability to come to terms with the effects of her own working style on almost all the other members of the Press. I deprived her of the chance to comprehend the breach between her and the Press Organization — which was far wider than the interpersonal breach between her and myself — and thus, because to this date I have not explained to her the purpose of the mediation, deprived the Press Organization of Mazal’s input. In constructive struggle it is vital to steer away from interpersonal criticisms of one another’s characters or traits. It is vital to address only the political issues. I failed to do this. Worse, I knew this at the time and chose to keep the political issue buried out of pure spite for her behavior. While it felt good to knowingly mystify the cause of the division and to lord this secret over her, it was counter-productive, uncomradely, and destructive to the Press.