Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Sacramento Anti-War Demonstration Confirms That Peace Takes Courage
Sacramento progressives confirmed that “peace takes courage” by holding another anti-war demonstration at 16th and Broadway. Over three hours starting at 5:00 pm, about 150 people dedicated to the anti-war/anti-Bush regime cause rejected pressure to boycott the demonstration because the “wrong people” were sponsoring it.
(Sacramento, CA June 10, 2006) Sacramento progressives confirmed that “peace takes courage” by holding another anti-war demonstration at 16th and Broadway. Over three hours starting at 5:00 pm, about 150 people dedicated to the anti-war/anti-Bush regime cause rejected pressure to boycott the demonstration because the “wrong people” were sponsoring it.
The peaceful, enthusiastic demonstration was the latest in a series beginning last summer at the busy 16th and Broadway location. Unfortunately, since the last demonstration in April 2006, another 128 U. S. troops have been killed and 378 have been wounded, “Mi Lai Massacre” type incidents have started to be uncovered, and untold thousands of Iraqis have died as “collateral damage.”
The community was energized when the original organizers scheduled another 16th & Broadway demonstration for June 10. Subsequently, these same organizers announced they were discouraged from organizing future anti-war demonstrations at 16th & Broadway and were canceling the June 10th demonstration, but encouraged anyone to feel free to go there and protest the war anytime.
The June 10th demonstration was resuscitated when long-time Sacramento activists and previous co-sponsors of these events, Ruth Holbrook and George McAdow, stepped in to fill the leadership void. The demonstration was ultimately sponsored by the Sacramento Coalition to End the War, Not in Our Name (NION)/Sacramento, World Can't Wait (WCW)-Drive out the Bush Regime, Chicano Consortium, Sacramento Peace Action, and Green Party/Sacramento.
Pressure to boycott the demonstration began almost immediately when the original organizers strongly objected to World Can’t Wait and Not In Our Name involvement, even though WCW and NION have previously co-sponsored the demonstrations. Radio talk show host Christine Craft (KSAC 1240 AM) even devoted most of her June 9 program to promote the boycott, decrying the supposed take over of the demonstration by violent, communist/anarchist outside agitators. Interestingly, some listeners reported mistaking the show for a taped airing of an historical Congressional Un-American Activities Committee hearing from the 1950’s.
The success of the June 10th demonstration shows that progressive activists dedicated to the anti-war cause will not ignore nor boycott anti-war demonstrations anywhere, anytime. They are focused on the pro-peace/anti-Bush cause, whomever is promoting that cause.
The growth of the progressive community in Sacramento has been based on the unconditional, unqualified support among all the diverse groups from the Anarchists, the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP) and the LaRouches, to Deaniac Democrats and Buchanan paleocons, coming together under the anti-war/anti-Bush banner. That’s what Sacramentans are accustomed to, and they’re not going to be intimidated into supporting anything that damages that solidarity. The strength of this movement is in its diversity.
The peaceful, enthusiastic demonstration was the latest in a series beginning last summer at the busy 16th and Broadway location. Unfortunately, since the last demonstration in April 2006, another 128 U. S. troops have been killed and 378 have been wounded, “Mi Lai Massacre” type incidents have started to be uncovered, and untold thousands of Iraqis have died as “collateral damage.”
The community was energized when the original organizers scheduled another 16th & Broadway demonstration for June 10. Subsequently, these same organizers announced they were discouraged from organizing future anti-war demonstrations at 16th & Broadway and were canceling the June 10th demonstration, but encouraged anyone to feel free to go there and protest the war anytime.
The June 10th demonstration was resuscitated when long-time Sacramento activists and previous co-sponsors of these events, Ruth Holbrook and George McAdow, stepped in to fill the leadership void. The demonstration was ultimately sponsored by the Sacramento Coalition to End the War, Not in Our Name (NION)/Sacramento, World Can't Wait (WCW)-Drive out the Bush Regime, Chicano Consortium, Sacramento Peace Action, and Green Party/Sacramento.
Pressure to boycott the demonstration began almost immediately when the original organizers strongly objected to World Can’t Wait and Not In Our Name involvement, even though WCW and NION have previously co-sponsored the demonstrations. Radio talk show host Christine Craft (KSAC 1240 AM) even devoted most of her June 9 program to promote the boycott, decrying the supposed take over of the demonstration by violent, communist/anarchist outside agitators. Interestingly, some listeners reported mistaking the show for a taped airing of an historical Congressional Un-American Activities Committee hearing from the 1950’s.
The success of the June 10th demonstration shows that progressive activists dedicated to the anti-war cause will not ignore nor boycott anti-war demonstrations anywhere, anytime. They are focused on the pro-peace/anti-Bush cause, whomever is promoting that cause.
The growth of the progressive community in Sacramento has been based on the unconditional, unqualified support among all the diverse groups from the Anarchists, the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP) and the LaRouches, to Deaniac Democrats and Buchanan paleocons, coming together under the anti-war/anti-Bush banner. That’s what Sacramentans are accustomed to, and they’re not going to be intimidated into supporting anything that damages that solidarity. The strength of this movement is in its diversity.
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
Only about 40 people came to this protest. I was there, and I counted 35 at the peak. Why overstate so much?
Really, there's no reason to grossly over-state the numbers, because there have been much larger groups here in the past. To say that 150 people were there really hurts your credibility as a publisher on this site, and it negatively impacts the credibility of the site itself.
We aren't Fox News: Let's keep this site honest!
Really, there's no reason to grossly over-state the numbers, because there have been much larger groups here in the past. To say that 150 people were there really hurts your credibility as a publisher on this site, and it negatively impacts the credibility of the site itself.
We aren't Fox News: Let's keep this site honest!
I'm surprised to see that the Left has its own spindoctor by the name of "Gary Zimmerman".
I didn't attend this event because I agreed with the "original organizers" about preserving and not over-using this demo location. But "Gary Zimmerman" would have you believe that the people who came out to protest were "courageous", when in fact they're just stupid!
The following is an email that one of the original organizers had sent to me prior to this demo explaning why he wasn't organizing this event. I've omitted names.
"Hello everyone,
I'm sorry to say that [we] are discouraged from organizing future anti-war demonstrations at 16th & Broadway.
We had some wonderful goals in mind for that location when we first started doing these last summer. The 14 events we've had out there began as "grass roots" undertakings and have continued to function that way. . . . .
[We] began expending considerable efforts to organize the events at Broadway. We sought to take them down a special and artistic path--one which involved fostering the continued perception of them as grass roots, neighborhood events, both in origin and atmosphere.
But other large, national organizations, such as World Can't Wait ("WCW") and Not In Our Name ("NION"), are steering our plans off course. These groups have moved to co-opt the site and take advantage of the status it has reached as a viable anti-war protest location.
Until now, the other major peace groups in Sacramento have extended us the courtesy of initiating every anti-war event there because they recognized that what we were doing was working; and the leaders recognized the need to preserve the locally-based, grass roots image of our events.
But much like when Safeway moves to swallow up the mom and pop store, WCW and NION have their own national agendas, which includes commandeering opportunities to solicit money.
We spoke with the local representatives of these groups, and we asked them if they could please (as a courtesy) hold their events somewhere else. Of course, all we could do was ask. But they rejected our request for what we believe are selfish reasons that will only hurt the local anti-war movement, and they've announced a demonstration this Saturday. We had originally planned an event there this Saturday, but we cancelled it because it conflicted with some other events that we will be promoting and attending.
Obviously, nobody owns the corner. Courtesy and rights are two different things. This is purely about courtesy. Nobody was interested in protesting on Broadway until we started these last year. All we wanted was to continue what we set out to do. Courtesy in this instance would have benefited the movement at large.
The last thing we wanted was to see the 16th & Broadway protests take on the appearance of an assembly-line of people holding green and white corporate-like WCW posters (advertising for WCW's donation-seeking campaign).
Some of the leaders of WCW accused us of "red-baiting." They said that we really don't want WCW there because it was founded by members of the Revolutionary Communist Party. But we've always encouraged diverse attendance. WCW has tabled at our events many times; they even handed out the Revolution newspaper. We never objected to that and have always encouraged a broad mix of idea-sharing. We don't care about their communist affiliation.
People have asked us why we would discourage any group from going out there to oppose the war and the president. But that's not what this is about. This is about maintaining a different image of the particular site. For example, if people just came out there every week and protested, the numbers would soon drop and the special nature of the events would disappear.
Similarly, if every event became an organizational free-for-all, a lot of the character that's been established by our events would be lost. We always encourage people to protest the war. But when we do it at 16th & Broadway, the impact we've had upon our audience has had much more to do with our events than just having a large crowd.
All organizers have different things in mind about the kinds of statements they want their demonstrations to convey. When people speak of the demonstrations there, we want that to conjure up images of spectacular, home-grown, creative, and artistically-inspired events. Local activists seemed to like what we were doing. All we wanted was to continue to brand the location with the reputation and imagery that it's developed and build upon that.
We're very sad about all of this. We believe that this kind of thing not only discourages other people like [us] from investing time and resources towards similar efforts but will also cause an ultimate decline in the turnouts at peace events at 16th & Broadway.
Whether or not we organize another event there, we will continue to remain involved in anti-war and human rights efforts; and we will continue to forward information about other events that we organize and/or support.
Thank you for your grass roots activism!
Sincerely,"
I didn't attend this event because I agreed with the "original organizers" about preserving and not over-using this demo location. But "Gary Zimmerman" would have you believe that the people who came out to protest were "courageous", when in fact they're just stupid!
The following is an email that one of the original organizers had sent to me prior to this demo explaning why he wasn't organizing this event. I've omitted names.
"Hello everyone,
I'm sorry to say that [we] are discouraged from organizing future anti-war demonstrations at 16th & Broadway.
We had some wonderful goals in mind for that location when we first started doing these last summer. The 14 events we've had out there began as "grass roots" undertakings and have continued to function that way. . . . .
[We] began expending considerable efforts to organize the events at Broadway. We sought to take them down a special and artistic path--one which involved fostering the continued perception of them as grass roots, neighborhood events, both in origin and atmosphere.
But other large, national organizations, such as World Can't Wait ("WCW") and Not In Our Name ("NION"), are steering our plans off course. These groups have moved to co-opt the site and take advantage of the status it has reached as a viable anti-war protest location.
Until now, the other major peace groups in Sacramento have extended us the courtesy of initiating every anti-war event there because they recognized that what we were doing was working; and the leaders recognized the need to preserve the locally-based, grass roots image of our events.
But much like when Safeway moves to swallow up the mom and pop store, WCW and NION have their own national agendas, which includes commandeering opportunities to solicit money.
We spoke with the local representatives of these groups, and we asked them if they could please (as a courtesy) hold their events somewhere else. Of course, all we could do was ask. But they rejected our request for what we believe are selfish reasons that will only hurt the local anti-war movement, and they've announced a demonstration this Saturday. We had originally planned an event there this Saturday, but we cancelled it because it conflicted with some other events that we will be promoting and attending.
Obviously, nobody owns the corner. Courtesy and rights are two different things. This is purely about courtesy. Nobody was interested in protesting on Broadway until we started these last year. All we wanted was to continue what we set out to do. Courtesy in this instance would have benefited the movement at large.
The last thing we wanted was to see the 16th & Broadway protests take on the appearance of an assembly-line of people holding green and white corporate-like WCW posters (advertising for WCW's donation-seeking campaign).
Some of the leaders of WCW accused us of "red-baiting." They said that we really don't want WCW there because it was founded by members of the Revolutionary Communist Party. But we've always encouraged diverse attendance. WCW has tabled at our events many times; they even handed out the Revolution newspaper. We never objected to that and have always encouraged a broad mix of idea-sharing. We don't care about their communist affiliation.
People have asked us why we would discourage any group from going out there to oppose the war and the president. But that's not what this is about. This is about maintaining a different image of the particular site. For example, if people just came out there every week and protested, the numbers would soon drop and the special nature of the events would disappear.
Similarly, if every event became an organizational free-for-all, a lot of the character that's been established by our events would be lost. We always encourage people to protest the war. But when we do it at 16th & Broadway, the impact we've had upon our audience has had much more to do with our events than just having a large crowd.
All organizers have different things in mind about the kinds of statements they want their demonstrations to convey. When people speak of the demonstrations there, we want that to conjure up images of spectacular, home-grown, creative, and artistically-inspired events. Local activists seemed to like what we were doing. All we wanted was to continue to brand the location with the reputation and imagery that it's developed and build upon that.
We're very sad about all of this. We believe that this kind of thing not only discourages other people like [us] from investing time and resources towards similar efforts but will also cause an ultimate decline in the turnouts at peace events at 16th & Broadway.
Whether or not we organize another event there, we will continue to remain involved in anti-war and human rights efforts; and we will continue to forward information about other events that we organize and/or support.
Thank you for your grass roots activism!
Sincerely,"
Gary Zimmerman knows full well that I never called for a boycott of the Saturday June 10 broadway demo.. I did have Steve and Virginia Pearcy on my program as well as Ruth HOlbroke(sp) via telephone to discuss the concerns that World Can't Wait has been increasingly seen by some to be co-opting the local peace activist events....We also discussed the research which demonstrates the Communist/Mrxist roots of WCW....something that many were heretofore unaware....Americans are free to be Marxists or communists if you so choose..but people are also free to know about these roots.
I personally am not a pacifist..I am personally opposed to this war...I favor a change in white house management...but not by violent overthrow..but rather by due process fueled by activism on the part of average,everyday Americans ..who do not opt for anarchism, communism ,or any other such flawed groupthink..but rather the democratic process...this is my personal view.
By the way..I noticed in the pictures of the sat event...several signs(Worst EVer) that I paid for..
I've never urged anyone to boycott anything...but it is fascinating to see an attack on my show..just because I point out some inconvenient truths. Christine Craft ksac 1240 am ..3-6pm m-f
I personally am not a pacifist..I am personally opposed to this war...I favor a change in white house management...but not by violent overthrow..but rather by due process fueled by activism on the part of average,everyday Americans ..who do not opt for anarchism, communism ,or any other such flawed groupthink..but rather the democratic process...this is my personal view.
By the way..I noticed in the pictures of the sat event...several signs(Worst EVer) that I paid for..
I've never urged anyone to boycott anything...but it is fascinating to see an attack on my show..just because I point out some inconvenient truths. Christine Craft ksac 1240 am ..3-6pm m-f
The original article doesn't say Christine Craft called for a boycott. It was Steve Pearcy who did. Steve went on her show and straight up lied about World Can't Wait. WCW was always invited by him to come to the rallies. He's known for a long time that some people in WCW are communists. That wasn't a problem for him when he spoke from the stage at the WCW rally on November 2nd. It was never a problem until last month. Why it suddenly became an issue for him I don't know.
Christine should be ashamed of herself for trashing progressive groups without doing any independent investigation. That's what real journalists should do.
The only inaccuracy in the original article is that 40 people is about right for the crowd estimate.
Christine should be ashamed of herself for trashing progressive groups without doing any independent investigation. That's what real journalists should do.
The only inaccuracy in the original article is that 40 people is about right for the crowd estimate.
Polly, I've been following the series of the Broadway demos and was listening to Craft's show on Friday. How did Steve lie about the WCW? Steve acknowledged on the show that WCW is a communist affiliated organization and that he had no problem with them attending the rallies that he had organized. WHERE IS THE LIE? If you were listening to the show, then you would have heard that Steve was concerned about the WCW leading the rallies at Broadway for several reasons, none of which you seem to remember, but I remember him saying something about their corporate-like protest signs and emphasis on rasising money for their organization. I can certainly sympathize with Steve for not wanting to turn the anti-war demos into fundraising activities. It's hard enough getting people out there. But PLEASE TELL PEOPLE WHAT HE LIED ABOUT, because everything Steve said on the show is true, even the prediction of the poor turnout.
Communists don't stand for freedom or democracy; they would strip away your right to practice your own religion or own property. I don't consider WCW a progressive group just; they want to drive out Bush and replace him with a communist government.
The language in this article only serves to create division in the local peace community. Let's hope that we can all work together soon, as we have in the past, and get our focus back on the corrupt administration (the real enemies!).
I spoke at WCW's Nov. 2 event. Big deal. I also signed their "call," just like a lot of other NON-WCW "members" did. Incidentally, what does it mean to be a WCW "member"? Donating $ to them? I never have. Being on their email list? If so, then are people on my list "Pearcy members"? (we never ask for donations)
I signed the NION statement, too, but I'm not a member of NION. So what if I agreed with a WCW statement and a NION statement? If Charles Manson asked me to sign a statement that said, "George Bush is an idiot," I'd sign it; would that make me a Manson follower?
Obviously, nobody owns the corner. Courtesy and rights are two different things. This is purely about courtesy. Courtesy in this instance would have benefited the movement at large.
Nobody was interested in protesting on Broadway until we started these last year. All we wanted was to continue what we set out to do. We sought to take our events down a special and artistic path--one which involved fostering the continued perception of them as grass roots, neighborhood events, both in origin and atmosphere. There was a nice brand occurring.
The last thing we wanted was to see the 16th & Broadway protests take on the appearance of an assembly-line of people holding boring green and white corporate-like WCW signs. Does "We are Borg" sound familiar?
When WCW leads an event, many special, creative and personal elements get lost in their sea of advertising.
I spoke at WCW's Nov. 2 event. Big deal. I also signed their "call," just like a lot of other NON-WCW "members" did. Incidentally, what does it mean to be a WCW "member"? Donating $ to them? I never have. Being on their email list? If so, then are people on my list "Pearcy members"? (we never ask for donations)
I signed the NION statement, too, but I'm not a member of NION. So what if I agreed with a WCW statement and a NION statement? If Charles Manson asked me to sign a statement that said, "George Bush is an idiot," I'd sign it; would that make me a Manson follower?
Obviously, nobody owns the corner. Courtesy and rights are two different things. This is purely about courtesy. Courtesy in this instance would have benefited the movement at large.
Nobody was interested in protesting on Broadway until we started these last year. All we wanted was to continue what we set out to do. We sought to take our events down a special and artistic path--one which involved fostering the continued perception of them as grass roots, neighborhood events, both in origin and atmosphere. There was a nice brand occurring.
The last thing we wanted was to see the 16th & Broadway protests take on the appearance of an assembly-line of people holding boring green and white corporate-like WCW signs. Does "We are Borg" sound familiar?
When WCW leads an event, many special, creative and personal elements get lost in their sea of advertising.
Stephen and Virginia Pearcy started these anti-war/anti-Bush rallies at 16th & Broadway last summer. They had every intention of continuing to host these events on a regular basis at this same location. Various political organizations had expressed interest in and participated in these events. The Pearcys recently asked these organizations, that as a courtesy they be allowed to continue to organize and host all peace rallies at this location (16th & Broadway). Sadly, these organizations decided not to grant the Pearcys this simple courtesy.
Sacramento is a fairly large city. There are plenty of other intersections in town that are ideal for these kinds of events. Instead of co-opting the site where the Pearcys have been hosting rallies since last summer, these political organizations can find another suitable intersection to hold their own peace rallies. That way everyone wins. The Pearcys can continue to organize and "brand" their peace rallies at 16th & Broadway and these other organizations can host rallies at another suitable location and brand them to their liking as well.
Sacramento is a fairly large city. There are plenty of other intersections in town that are ideal for these kinds of events. Instead of co-opting the site where the Pearcys have been hosting rallies since last summer, these political organizations can find another suitable intersection to hold their own peace rallies. That way everyone wins. The Pearcys can continue to organize and "brand" their peace rallies at 16th & Broadway and these other organizations can host rallies at another suitable location and brand them to their liking as well.
Of course there was a smaller turnout. He described WCW as violent (there's one lie) which no doubt scared several people away. As George said on the show, Steve sent out an e-mail saying anyone who wanted to protest there could. Here is his e-mail from May 28th:
Hello everyone,
In an email Friday, I mentioned that Virginia and I were planning an
anti-war (or "pro-peace," if you prefer) demo on Saturday, June 10th. Since
Friday, however, we've decided not to do that.
Obviously, anyone is free to go out there and protest the war anytime. We
just wanted to let you know that our June 10th plans are off.
Regards,
Stephen Pearcy
So George and Ruth sent out announcements and press releases and invited WCW to participate. Only after they did that did Steve reverse his position and complain. Other lies: he said he articulated his concerns to the Sac WCW person before. The truth is he never directly contacted her. He also said he wanted a family-like safe atmosphere. If so, why did he come dressed in a ski mask one time?
But the main thing is, he should have discussed his differences and complaints with WCW. He knows a lot of us personally. But he chose a smear campaign instead. Not very principled.
Hello everyone,
In an email Friday, I mentioned that Virginia and I were planning an
anti-war (or "pro-peace," if you prefer) demo on Saturday, June 10th. Since
Friday, however, we've decided not to do that.
Obviously, anyone is free to go out there and protest the war anytime. We
just wanted to let you know that our June 10th plans are off.
Regards,
Stephen Pearcy
So George and Ruth sent out announcements and press releases and invited WCW to participate. Only after they did that did Steve reverse his position and complain. Other lies: he said he articulated his concerns to the Sac WCW person before. The truth is he never directly contacted her. He also said he wanted a family-like safe atmosphere. If so, why did he come dressed in a ski mask one time?
But the main thing is, he should have discussed his differences and complaints with WCW. He knows a lot of us personally. But he chose a smear campaign instead. Not very principled.
All I can say to the Pearcys is: "PLEASE COME BACK TO SAC!"
When I first started showing up to protests on 16th and Broadway, I was generally glad to know that Sacramento was not filled with apathetic, self-involved people who just regurgitated what they heard on television debates or radio talk shows. I didn't have to drive all the way out to San Francisco to participate in politics or witness activism through the nightly news -- the simple fact that activism was very much alive in Sacramento was a good thing. However, that stamina and zeal for activism has now degenerated to shallow polarization and petty politics.
Look, I don't care what shade of left you are, whether you are Republican or communist or anarchist, or whatever your stance is on fiscal responsibility. If you want the troops withdrawn from Iraq, for sovereignty and justice to be restored to the absolutely devastated Iraqi people, for the U.S. to stop flexing its military might, and/or so that we can concentrate on perpetual issues domestically -- just show up. Whatever your issue is, whether it is because your specific political agenda isn't getting pushed, you need to read a book by Marx or Goldman or Chomsky (or just read a book, really), you have problems with certain individuals, you need to not base your political understanding on stereotypes, or whatever particularly ails you so, I'm sure you can set it aside for one afternoon. Get over yourselves and get over to possibly the ONLY regular site of political activism in Sacramento.
And as a high school student and young political activist watching this all unfold, please do not set a precedent of petty politics here in Sacramento and degrade any chance of activism here in the future for the youth. There are enough apathetic, self-involved people who don't care about politics and the larger community already -- please do not contribute any more.
Look, I don't care what shade of left you are, whether you are Republican or communist or anarchist, or whatever your stance is on fiscal responsibility. If you want the troops withdrawn from Iraq, for sovereignty and justice to be restored to the absolutely devastated Iraqi people, for the U.S. to stop flexing its military might, and/or so that we can concentrate on perpetual issues domestically -- just show up. Whatever your issue is, whether it is because your specific political agenda isn't getting pushed, you need to read a book by Marx or Goldman or Chomsky (or just read a book, really), you have problems with certain individuals, you need to not base your political understanding on stereotypes, or whatever particularly ails you so, I'm sure you can set it aside for one afternoon. Get over yourselves and get over to possibly the ONLY regular site of political activism in Sacramento.
And as a high school student and young political activist watching this all unfold, please do not set a precedent of petty politics here in Sacramento and degrade any chance of activism here in the future for the youth. There are enough apathetic, self-involved people who don't care about politics and the larger community already -- please do not contribute any more.
an alternative article has been posted in response to zimmerman's
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/06/12/18280344.php
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/06/12/18280344.php
In reading your response to an earlier posting, I noticed that you've made some inaccurate statements that I would like to correct.
First, you state that "He described WCW as violent (there's one lie) which no doubt scared several people away." This is not true. Christine Craft was concerned about the violent nature of the WCW group based on her past experiences of witnessing the group at prior demonstrations (e.g., the Bush protest in W. Sac and the Cheney protest downtown). But Steve did not state on the show that this was his concern with WCW and has never stated it. I think you confused Christine's concerns with Steve's.
Second, you state, "Steve sent out an e-mail saying anyone who wanted to protest there could." However, what George and Ruth conveniently fail to mention on the air (and apparently to their followers who have been repeating misinformation) is that Steve informed Ruth and Goerge, as well as other prior co-sponsors of the Broadway rallies, that we were going to be planning a rally there soon but that June 10th was not a good time due to various conflicts, one of which was Mumgo Gumbo. Steve articulated his concerns Ruth and George as well as to the prior co-sponsors of the rallies. Unfortunately, I guess you could say he made a mistake of conveying this only through phone calls or emails to select co-sponsors and not to the entire peace community. However, he did not anticipate he would be stabbed in the back through the dissemination of half-truths by individuals whom had co-sponsored the events in the past.
Third, you state, "He also said he wanted a family-like safe atmosphere. If so, why did he come dressed in a ski mask one time?" In the 14 rallies that Steve and I have organized at 16th & Broadway, Steve has never worn a ski mask. Again, it appears that individuals are intent of hiding the truth of this situation through deception and lies (sound familiar?). Steve wore a ski mask to the Bush protest in W. Sac to "unwelcome" Bush, as well as to symbolize many other messages (e.g., protesting annonymously).
Finally, you stated, "But he chose a smear campaign instead. Not very principled." First of all, Ruth and George did not give us the chance to discuss our concerns about this demo prior their announcement. As a matter of fact, when they announced the demo, they intentionally unvited us by removing us from their distribution list. Despite this slap in the face, once we learned of the planned demo, Steve and I invited Ruth and George to our home to discuss the concerns that not only we had but that the other prior co-sponsors had. Ruth did not want to speak to us to hear our concerns, and George showed up prior to the planned meeting and left before the other interested parties could arrive. The consensus of the meeting was that we should attempt to let the week pass without any further discussion of the topic and hope that after the demo and after tensions died down, we could focus on continuing what we had started at 16th & Broadway. However, Ruth and George had no intention of letting this die down and began sending disparaging emails to us while "bccing" individuals without giving us an opportunity to respond to these unknown individuals in the peace community. Thus, Steve and I had no recourse but to take Christine up on her invitation to come onto her show to publicly voice our concerns, since Ruth and George were not sharing the entire story to their lists. Prior to the events of this past week, I had a lot of respect for Ruth and George and their accomplishments in the Sacramento area. However, the tactics they, and others that seem to have taken "their side", have used by circulating misinformation, not engaging in truth telling and not giving Steve and me an opportunity to correct this information to their lists, is not principled and unfortunately reminds me of the same tactics that the right-wingers use.
First, you state that "He described WCW as violent (there's one lie) which no doubt scared several people away." This is not true. Christine Craft was concerned about the violent nature of the WCW group based on her past experiences of witnessing the group at prior demonstrations (e.g., the Bush protest in W. Sac and the Cheney protest downtown). But Steve did not state on the show that this was his concern with WCW and has never stated it. I think you confused Christine's concerns with Steve's.
Second, you state, "Steve sent out an e-mail saying anyone who wanted to protest there could." However, what George and Ruth conveniently fail to mention on the air (and apparently to their followers who have been repeating misinformation) is that Steve informed Ruth and Goerge, as well as other prior co-sponsors of the Broadway rallies, that we were going to be planning a rally there soon but that June 10th was not a good time due to various conflicts, one of which was Mumgo Gumbo. Steve articulated his concerns Ruth and George as well as to the prior co-sponsors of the rallies. Unfortunately, I guess you could say he made a mistake of conveying this only through phone calls or emails to select co-sponsors and not to the entire peace community. However, he did not anticipate he would be stabbed in the back through the dissemination of half-truths by individuals whom had co-sponsored the events in the past.
Third, you state, "He also said he wanted a family-like safe atmosphere. If so, why did he come dressed in a ski mask one time?" In the 14 rallies that Steve and I have organized at 16th & Broadway, Steve has never worn a ski mask. Again, it appears that individuals are intent of hiding the truth of this situation through deception and lies (sound familiar?). Steve wore a ski mask to the Bush protest in W. Sac to "unwelcome" Bush, as well as to symbolize many other messages (e.g., protesting annonymously).
Finally, you stated, "But he chose a smear campaign instead. Not very principled." First of all, Ruth and George did not give us the chance to discuss our concerns about this demo prior their announcement. As a matter of fact, when they announced the demo, they intentionally unvited us by removing us from their distribution list. Despite this slap in the face, once we learned of the planned demo, Steve and I invited Ruth and George to our home to discuss the concerns that not only we had but that the other prior co-sponsors had. Ruth did not want to speak to us to hear our concerns, and George showed up prior to the planned meeting and left before the other interested parties could arrive. The consensus of the meeting was that we should attempt to let the week pass without any further discussion of the topic and hope that after the demo and after tensions died down, we could focus on continuing what we had started at 16th & Broadway. However, Ruth and George had no intention of letting this die down and began sending disparaging emails to us while "bccing" individuals without giving us an opportunity to respond to these unknown individuals in the peace community. Thus, Steve and I had no recourse but to take Christine up on her invitation to come onto her show to publicly voice our concerns, since Ruth and George were not sharing the entire story to their lists. Prior to the events of this past week, I had a lot of respect for Ruth and George and their accomplishments in the Sacramento area. However, the tactics they, and others that seem to have taken "their side", have used by circulating misinformation, not engaging in truth telling and not giving Steve and me an opportunity to correct this information to their lists, is not principled and unfortunately reminds me of the same tactics that the right-wingers use.
Polly,
I have claimed that the Bush administration is a terrorist organization, but I NEVER claimed that WCW was violent. I really have no idea about that, so I couldn't say.
I have claimed that the Bush administration is a terrorist organization, but I NEVER claimed that WCW was violent. I really have no idea about that, so I couldn't say.
It is legitimate to be concerned that a group like NION/World Can't Wait (both RCP front groups) will coopt any part of the movement. There is a proven track record of Leninist/Trotskyist/ Maoist authoritarian socialist groups doing this. It is not red baiting or anti-communist to acknowledge that history. But when someone says the danger lies in siding with people with Marxist or anarchist views, that is only showing that one has a surface level, and ultimately liberal point of view. Liberals (talk about "flawed groupthink") want to stop one war at a time without ever getting materially into why wars exist. Other Liberals want everyone to get along under an "anti-war/anti-Bush" line, without ever questioning the fact that "the movement" is an effort _toward_ something, not just to stop individual wars or laws, which liberals often blame on Republicans or corruption rather than seeing the roots of exploitation in the system of production and social relations (wage labor means workers reproduce their own alienation--see Marx _Capital_). What groups like ANSWER, NION, ISO, etc. are moving toward is State Capitalist Party line authoritarianism, support for dictators, any "anti-imperialist" who has the same enemies as they do, no matter what they stand for as far as a future society (See George Galloway's defense of the Soviet Union, Saddam Hussein, and his uncritical views of Fidel Castro). Their organizing is usually some sort of democratic centralism, the left wing equivalent of "trickle down" theory, which leaves the workers "represented" by the enlightened vanguard, in other words leaves them powerless in these fake "socialist" (bureaucratic) models. These movements represent the counterpart to capitalism, not a movement toward an egalitarian and free society.
There are some interesting critiques of authoritarian socialism from Marxists, anarchists, and from the (ultra)Left. Here are a few if anyone is interested:
The World Can't Wake:
http://www.worldcantwake.org/
ISOnuts:
http://userhttp://www.sfsu.edu/%7Emotopu/attemptfixisonuts.htm
"Criticizing the Authoritarian 'Left'"
http://www.infoshop.org/texts/iso.html
Rosa Luxemburg "Leninism or Marxism?"
http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1904/questions-rsd/index.htm
Also check out Socialism or Barbarism, especially C.L.R. James book _Facing Reality_ if you want to see Communists who have condemned vanguardist organizing methods as inherently authoritarian and counter revolutionary. The Situationists were also influenced by such groups and the efforts of the Dadaists and Surrealists who were initially also trying to move beyond the present order by subverting and exposing it for what it is.
Here's another interesting site with many thought provoking links:
John Gray for Communism
http://www.geocities.com/%7Ejohngray/
There is no rule that says you can't march along side anyone you want to, but you should be aware of what groups stand for historically and ideologically, and be aware that some groups really do see themselves as better judges of what is best for you than you are, and will subvert your efforts in an attempt to bring you on board with their line, while telling you to your face that you're participating in a democratic process. Such groups are usually concerned with "building the movement" over actually attempting to find appropriate actions to dismantle the system based on what is known in a given situation. Building their movements alienates you from your own desires, just as the present system does.
There are some interesting critiques of authoritarian socialism from Marxists, anarchists, and from the (ultra)Left. Here are a few if anyone is interested:
The World Can't Wake:
http://www.worldcantwake.org/
ISOnuts:
http://userhttp://www.sfsu.edu/%7Emotopu/attemptfixisonuts.htm
"Criticizing the Authoritarian 'Left'"
http://www.infoshop.org/texts/iso.html
Rosa Luxemburg "Leninism or Marxism?"
http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1904/questions-rsd/index.htm
Also check out Socialism or Barbarism, especially C.L.R. James book _Facing Reality_ if you want to see Communists who have condemned vanguardist organizing methods as inherently authoritarian and counter revolutionary. The Situationists were also influenced by such groups and the efforts of the Dadaists and Surrealists who were initially also trying to move beyond the present order by subverting and exposing it for what it is.
Here's another interesting site with many thought provoking links:
John Gray for Communism
http://www.geocities.com/%7Ejohngray/
There is no rule that says you can't march along side anyone you want to, but you should be aware of what groups stand for historically and ideologically, and be aware that some groups really do see themselves as better judges of what is best for you than you are, and will subvert your efforts in an attempt to bring you on board with their line, while telling you to your face that you're participating in a democratic process. Such groups are usually concerned with "building the movement" over actually attempting to find appropriate actions to dismantle the system based on what is known in a given situation. Building their movements alienates you from your own desires, just as the present system does.
The territorialism and proprietary-ness from the Pearcys is truly astounding:
"Nobody was interested in protesting on Broadway until we started these last year. All we wanted was to continue what we set out to do. We sought to take our events down a special and artistic path--one which involved fostering the continued perception of them as grass roots, neighborhood events, both in origin and atmosphere. There was a nice brand occurring."
Branding? I don't know what to make of this. The purpose of anti-war and anti-bush demos is not to be a cute little family-friendly (whatever that means) neighborhood "brand." The purpose is to grow to the point where you can make an impact and help stop the war and drive out the Bush regime!
"The last thing we wanted was to see the 16th & Broadway protests take on the appearance of an assembly-line of people holding green and white corporate-like WCW posters (advertising for WCW's donation-seeking campaign)."
First of all, WCW as "Borg" is ludicris to the point of being laughable (except it's not funny when you put it in an historical context of McCarthyite slanders. If you knew anything about WCW you would know that it is not an assembly line. They are as grassroots as you can get, which is exactly why they ask for donations!!! The Bill Gates fund hasn't trickled down to WCW yet! 2nd, WCW does not force anyone to carry their green signs. And anyone who is serious about building a mass movement to actually change things -- and not just a "neighborhood event" -- knows that you have to get posters and signs printed. This is a ridiculous reason to not support a protest! 3rd, WCW is actually a very artistic and creative group. Think about the poetry of the name, "The World Can't Wait." Think about the giant Bush statue and creative music/chants at their S.F. protest on Jan 31. Think about all the artists/actors/musicians that have signed the call.
As far as Christine Graft's thing about WCW hiding it's commie roots... this would be the perfect time to use the commie expression, "no investigation, no right to speak!" Look at the WCWs website (or talk to someone involved) and you will see in their FAQs and elsewhere, that they were founded, among others, by members of the Revolutionary Communist Party. So what! WCW is not a communist group and they do not hide who founded their organization. They are a group dedicated to driving out the Bush regime and anyone who's down with that can be involved. They have no position on what should come after Bush, but think that is something that gets debated and worked out in the context of the movement.
But if there is to be a movement, you guys should take some of the high school student "Tina's" advice:
"Look, I don't care what shade of left you are, whether you are Republican or communist or anarchist, or whatever your stance is on fiscal responsibility. If you want the troops withdrawn from Iraq, for sovereignty and justice to be restored to the absolutely devastated Iraqi people, for the U.S. to stop flexing its military might, and/or so that we can concentrate on perpetual issues domestically -- just show up."
"Nobody was interested in protesting on Broadway until we started these last year. All we wanted was to continue what we set out to do. We sought to take our events down a special and artistic path--one which involved fostering the continued perception of them as grass roots, neighborhood events, both in origin and atmosphere. There was a nice brand occurring."
Branding? I don't know what to make of this. The purpose of anti-war and anti-bush demos is not to be a cute little family-friendly (whatever that means) neighborhood "brand." The purpose is to grow to the point where you can make an impact and help stop the war and drive out the Bush regime!
"The last thing we wanted was to see the 16th & Broadway protests take on the appearance of an assembly-line of people holding green and white corporate-like WCW posters (advertising for WCW's donation-seeking campaign)."
First of all, WCW as "Borg" is ludicris to the point of being laughable (except it's not funny when you put it in an historical context of McCarthyite slanders. If you knew anything about WCW you would know that it is not an assembly line. They are as grassroots as you can get, which is exactly why they ask for donations!!! The Bill Gates fund hasn't trickled down to WCW yet! 2nd, WCW does not force anyone to carry their green signs. And anyone who is serious about building a mass movement to actually change things -- and not just a "neighborhood event" -- knows that you have to get posters and signs printed. This is a ridiculous reason to not support a protest! 3rd, WCW is actually a very artistic and creative group. Think about the poetry of the name, "The World Can't Wait." Think about the giant Bush statue and creative music/chants at their S.F. protest on Jan 31. Think about all the artists/actors/musicians that have signed the call.
As far as Christine Graft's thing about WCW hiding it's commie roots... this would be the perfect time to use the commie expression, "no investigation, no right to speak!" Look at the WCWs website (or talk to someone involved) and you will see in their FAQs and elsewhere, that they were founded, among others, by members of the Revolutionary Communist Party. So what! WCW is not a communist group and they do not hide who founded their organization. They are a group dedicated to driving out the Bush regime and anyone who's down with that can be involved. They have no position on what should come after Bush, but think that is something that gets debated and worked out in the context of the movement.
But if there is to be a movement, you guys should take some of the high school student "Tina's" advice:
"Look, I don't care what shade of left you are, whether you are Republican or communist or anarchist, or whatever your stance is on fiscal responsibility. If you want the troops withdrawn from Iraq, for sovereignty and justice to be restored to the absolutely devastated Iraqi people, for the U.S. to stop flexing its military might, and/or so that we can concentrate on perpetual issues domestically -- just show up."
I agree with the Pearcy's that we need to maintain the family oriented brand of the Broadway rallies. We need to get mainstream America into the peace movement and have them bring out their kids. Having communist front groups that don't agree with our democracy or Bill of Rights lead these movements, won't bring mainstream America into the peace movement.
That is one reason I'm with the Pearcys on this. I have attended all but one of the Pearcys' 16th & Broadway rallies and thought that most of them were fairly effective in promoting the Anti-Iraq War/Anti-Bush Administration message to passing motorists. Many of the events got mainstream media coverage as well.
I say we allow the Pearcys to continue doing what they are doing at 16th & Broadway without interference or competition at this location. The Pearcys have done more for the local anti-Iraq war movement than anyone else. They've earned at least this much consideration. Besides, most of their rallies have been quite effective at promoting the cause of ending this war now rather than at some undetermined point in the distant future. Other individuals and organizations wanting to organize and host rallies can do so at another intersection.
I say we allow the Pearcys to continue doing what they are doing at 16th & Broadway without interference or competition at this location. The Pearcys have done more for the local anti-Iraq war movement than anyone else. They've earned at least this much consideration. Besides, most of their rallies have been quite effective at promoting the cause of ending this war now rather than at some undetermined point in the distant future. Other individuals and organizations wanting to organize and host rallies can do so at another intersection.
You can red-bait and wave american flags and "support the troops" (Like those good soldiers in Haditha) more fervently than the republicans in your supposed quest for "mainstream america," but then you are just like the democrats. And what have they done, besides tailing after Bush new facistic order? We need to have principles -- like "support the troops that resist" and "drive out the Bush regime" -- if we are to avoid the deadly compromises (like the pathetic democrats) that have gotten us in this situation in the first place.
I agree with Justin. We need to get the message out to mainstream America in order to put pressure on those in power. I'm mostly talking about Congress when I say that. Hopefully we will be able to replace many pro-Iraq war members in the Midterm elections. At the very least, this will check Bush's power and could lead to impeachment of Bush and Cheney.
How is telling the truth "red baiting"? Is WCW ashamed of its Communist affiliation? Of course not. And the WCW deceptively hides the truth from those they try to get donate because they know that patriotic Americans won't donate to a communist front group regardless of the Anti-Bush slogan.
And by the way, your "Republican baiting" doesn't work because I'm a registered Democrat and have never been affiliated with the GOP.
And by the way, your "Republican baiting" doesn't work because I'm a registered Democrat and have never been affiliated with the GOP.
yadadamean can blame it all on the Democrats, but this will not help bring this war to an end. Are some Democratic politicians partly to blame for where we are at? You bet. However, there are a lot of good Democratic Office holders that speak out against this war and other Bush policies every chance they get. We also have some very good candidates running for Congress, a couple of whom are in this area.
I believe the biggest problem is the corporate media and the influence of corporate money in the political process. That is why progressive talk radio and the trend towards campaigns being financed by large numbers of small donations by individuals are so vitally important.
I believe the biggest problem is the corporate media and the influence of corporate money in the political process. That is why progressive talk radio and the trend towards campaigns being financed by large numbers of small donations by individuals are so vitally important.
There is more than enough room at 16th & Broadway for EVERYONE - This is a sentiment made crystal clear by Stephen and Virginia Pearcy - the original initiators of 16th& Broadway peace vigils. The Pearcy's staged 14 peace in Iraq vigils over a one year time frame.
Other peace groups are more than welcome to demonstrate there - 16th & Broadway is part of "The Commons" free public space open to anyone. If Martians who promote green cheese want to demonstrate at 16th & Broadway - Stephen and Viriginia Pearcy would say hooray, yippie zip-pid-dee-doo-dah and enthusiastically encourage them.
One huge problem with World Can't Wait is for one entire year they relentlessly badgered, nagged and pestered Stephen and Virginia Pearcy for cash financial donations to their group. The Pearcy's spent over $10,000 out of their OWN pocket to produce 14 peace vigils in the last year. The Pearcy's have a mortgage to pay - they are a young couple getting established in their careers. They are not in a position to continually fork over big cash donations to World Can't Wait. However, World Can't Wait feels a sense of "entitlement" and "you owe me" attitude and refused to take no for an answer.
This cult like behavior is disturbing to me - why doesn't World Can't Wait raise their OWN money, instead of strong arming people who cannot afford to contribute? Why doesn't World Can't Wait be creative enough to pick a spot and establish their demonstrations in Sacramento? Many, many other peace groups have established weekly vigils at two spots downtown - also near Fulton/Marconi at Arden Arcade - other peace groups choose to demonstrate at the State Capitol Dome - downtown convention center...............
Why does World Can't Wait want to ride on the coat tails of the Pearcy's? Is it because they aren't creative enough to think up a site of their own? Imitiation is the greatest source of flattery. The Pearcy's are "idea people" who creatively invented 16th & Broadway
out of thin air on a shoe string budget.
If all World Can't Wait can do is to whine, blubber and squabble - whimpering "The Pearcy's are anti-communist and they are great big meanies" - then this is really, quite frankly EMBARRASSING themselves in public as undisciplined, politicially ingenuous, self absorbed
sour grapes. Sort of reminds me exactly of Sacramento News and Reviews constantly bashing Sacramento Bee for being "anti union". SN&R is rabidly anti-union - does not have a union, yet bashes the Bee for its management labor relations.
Give me a break............pullllleassse, please, Louise!
No matter how patiently and politely the Pearcy's tried to explain to World Can't Wait that they do not have the financial means to donate large amounts of money to WCW........World Can't Wait absolutely refused to take "no" for an answer for their relentless please for money. Kind of like the Moonies Unification Church and Krishna folks at the airport who give you a hard time if you don't fork over money.
After one entire year of relentlessly being "shaken down" for money - when the Pearcy's finally and politely put their foot down and expressed limits and boundaries....organizers from World Can't Wait accused the Pearcy's of being "anti-communist" and "red baiters" and "red haters"............this is preposterous and patently absurd. The Pearcy's could care less if World Can't Wait is founded by Revolutionary Communist Party activists. The Pearcy's freely welcomed RCP organizers to distribute their newspaper, literature and demonstrate at 16th & Broaday. No problem there. What the Pearcy's refused to do was knucle down to relentless, abrasive demands for cash donations. Then RCP and WCW retaliated by defaming the Pearcy's as
anti-communist and "red haters."
The Pearcy's simply cannot afford to give financial donations to World Can't Wait - plus the Pearcy's rightfully believe it is HUGE waste of money to spend zillions running full page newspaper ads in papers.
The 1960's civil rights movement did not succeed because of running full page newspaper ads. Nixon did not step down from the White House because the left published full page newspaper ads. Womens Liberation did not make milestone advances because of running full page newspaper ads. World Can't Wait is adamant about running full page newspaper ads and does extremely agressive fund raising to finance this goal.
This is a HUGE waste of money. Financial resources should be used to mobilize huge crowds of people to take direct action, civil disobedience, enourmous mass rallies, running blogs, discussion boards, petition campaigns, funding alternative progressive media, exposing corrupt politicians and helping to get honest, ethical progressives elected to public office.
The fact this blog is bashing the Pearcy's is LIBEL which could result in litigation by alleging they are "anti-communist" and "anti-red" is scurillious mendacity of the lowest order. However, the Pearcy's have far too much class, dignity and good breeding to stoop to the level of their accusers.
No one with good breeding, manners and diplomatic self control appreciates Gary Zimmermans proclivity for mudsling, gossip, publishing unfounded allegations against the original founders of 16th & Broadway. There is no honor in this behavior of Gary Zimmermans.
Shame on you Gary.
The biggest enemy of the left is not neo-cons, it is not corporate-mafia Republican hegemony of global resources. The biggest enemy of the left is the "inside jobs" - the treachery for back stabbing, gossip, airing dirty laundry in public and internal infighting among what allegedly passes for the "progressive movement."
Gary - I look forward in the very near future to reading your public apology and retraction. You will sleep much better tonight if you "do the right thing" and act in a gentlemanly manner. The Pearcy's are open minded, good hearted and are willing to let bygones be bygones. You however, have a bone to pick - an axe to grind. Give it up - o.k.? It isn't dignified and it hurts the peace in Iraq movement when you engage in divisive, politics of hate tactics.
Bush/Cheney - Bretton Woods organizations - Bildenberg Group - Tri Lateral Commission will absolutely BURY us if folks like you in the left engage in petty bickering, feuding and childish tattling - "telling tales out of school" kindegarden antics gossiping.
I worked for 10 years on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. for NGO's, non-profits, pro bono legal defense funds, human rights organizations. I performed legislative liasion, grant writing, fund raising, community outreach and citizen/consumer education campaigns. The reason I quit my job in disgust and left Capitol Hill is because of the childish, self-destructive mudsling gossip the left unfortunately is addicted to.
This is the reason why neo-cons and corporate mafia rule the world. Because what allegedly passes for the so-called progressive movement repeatedly shoots itself in the foot - puts their foot in their mouth with nasty rants bickering and complaining about other left-y groups.
This highly self destructive, territorial, combative, duplicitious hijinks belongs in fourth grade - not among the behavior of adults - certainly not among folks who claim to be "progressive".
For the record - it is common knowledge all over Bay Area S.F. region that World Can't Wait and A.N.S.W.E.R. absolutely HATE each others guts. They stooped to highly public squabbling, held press conferences denouncing each other to the mainstream media and alternative press. Having burned its bridges in the Bay Area - then World Can't Wait decided to harrass, vilify, persecute the Pearcy's here in Sacramento with petty tantrums and mudslinging gossip.
I predict Sacramento folks will tire of WCW strong arm fundraising tactics - eventually WCE will roll over and play dead - disappear into the dust and pick another town to pounce on local peace activists - drive them absolutely bonkers - try to destroy the good deeds those groups do for peace in Iraq - then split town - move on - to go drive some other peace group crazy.
It pains me greatly to write this declaration - but somebody must do it.
Keep Hope Alive,
Colleen Marie-Blanchefleur Whalen
Sacramento Peace Activist and Seeker of Truth
Other peace groups are more than welcome to demonstrate there - 16th & Broadway is part of "The Commons" free public space open to anyone. If Martians who promote green cheese want to demonstrate at 16th & Broadway - Stephen and Viriginia Pearcy would say hooray, yippie zip-pid-dee-doo-dah and enthusiastically encourage them.
One huge problem with World Can't Wait is for one entire year they relentlessly badgered, nagged and pestered Stephen and Virginia Pearcy for cash financial donations to their group. The Pearcy's spent over $10,000 out of their OWN pocket to produce 14 peace vigils in the last year. The Pearcy's have a mortgage to pay - they are a young couple getting established in their careers. They are not in a position to continually fork over big cash donations to World Can't Wait. However, World Can't Wait feels a sense of "entitlement" and "you owe me" attitude and refused to take no for an answer.
This cult like behavior is disturbing to me - why doesn't World Can't Wait raise their OWN money, instead of strong arming people who cannot afford to contribute? Why doesn't World Can't Wait be creative enough to pick a spot and establish their demonstrations in Sacramento? Many, many other peace groups have established weekly vigils at two spots downtown - also near Fulton/Marconi at Arden Arcade - other peace groups choose to demonstrate at the State Capitol Dome - downtown convention center...............
Why does World Can't Wait want to ride on the coat tails of the Pearcy's? Is it because they aren't creative enough to think up a site of their own? Imitiation is the greatest source of flattery. The Pearcy's are "idea people" who creatively invented 16th & Broadway
out of thin air on a shoe string budget.
If all World Can't Wait can do is to whine, blubber and squabble - whimpering "The Pearcy's are anti-communist and they are great big meanies" - then this is really, quite frankly EMBARRASSING themselves in public as undisciplined, politicially ingenuous, self absorbed
sour grapes. Sort of reminds me exactly of Sacramento News and Reviews constantly bashing Sacramento Bee for being "anti union". SN&R is rabidly anti-union - does not have a union, yet bashes the Bee for its management labor relations.
Give me a break............pullllleassse, please, Louise!
No matter how patiently and politely the Pearcy's tried to explain to World Can't Wait that they do not have the financial means to donate large amounts of money to WCW........World Can't Wait absolutely refused to take "no" for an answer for their relentless please for money. Kind of like the Moonies Unification Church and Krishna folks at the airport who give you a hard time if you don't fork over money.
After one entire year of relentlessly being "shaken down" for money - when the Pearcy's finally and politely put their foot down and expressed limits and boundaries....organizers from World Can't Wait accused the Pearcy's of being "anti-communist" and "red baiters" and "red haters"............this is preposterous and patently absurd. The Pearcy's could care less if World Can't Wait is founded by Revolutionary Communist Party activists. The Pearcy's freely welcomed RCP organizers to distribute their newspaper, literature and demonstrate at 16th & Broaday. No problem there. What the Pearcy's refused to do was knucle down to relentless, abrasive demands for cash donations. Then RCP and WCW retaliated by defaming the Pearcy's as
anti-communist and "red haters."
The Pearcy's simply cannot afford to give financial donations to World Can't Wait - plus the Pearcy's rightfully believe it is HUGE waste of money to spend zillions running full page newspaper ads in papers.
The 1960's civil rights movement did not succeed because of running full page newspaper ads. Nixon did not step down from the White House because the left published full page newspaper ads. Womens Liberation did not make milestone advances because of running full page newspaper ads. World Can't Wait is adamant about running full page newspaper ads and does extremely agressive fund raising to finance this goal.
This is a HUGE waste of money. Financial resources should be used to mobilize huge crowds of people to take direct action, civil disobedience, enourmous mass rallies, running blogs, discussion boards, petition campaigns, funding alternative progressive media, exposing corrupt politicians and helping to get honest, ethical progressives elected to public office.
The fact this blog is bashing the Pearcy's is LIBEL which could result in litigation by alleging they are "anti-communist" and "anti-red" is scurillious mendacity of the lowest order. However, the Pearcy's have far too much class, dignity and good breeding to stoop to the level of their accusers.
No one with good breeding, manners and diplomatic self control appreciates Gary Zimmermans proclivity for mudsling, gossip, publishing unfounded allegations against the original founders of 16th & Broadway. There is no honor in this behavior of Gary Zimmermans.
Shame on you Gary.
The biggest enemy of the left is not neo-cons, it is not corporate-mafia Republican hegemony of global resources. The biggest enemy of the left is the "inside jobs" - the treachery for back stabbing, gossip, airing dirty laundry in public and internal infighting among what allegedly passes for the "progressive movement."
Gary - I look forward in the very near future to reading your public apology and retraction. You will sleep much better tonight if you "do the right thing" and act in a gentlemanly manner. The Pearcy's are open minded, good hearted and are willing to let bygones be bygones. You however, have a bone to pick - an axe to grind. Give it up - o.k.? It isn't dignified and it hurts the peace in Iraq movement when you engage in divisive, politics of hate tactics.
Bush/Cheney - Bretton Woods organizations - Bildenberg Group - Tri Lateral Commission will absolutely BURY us if folks like you in the left engage in petty bickering, feuding and childish tattling - "telling tales out of school" kindegarden antics gossiping.
I worked for 10 years on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. for NGO's, non-profits, pro bono legal defense funds, human rights organizations. I performed legislative liasion, grant writing, fund raising, community outreach and citizen/consumer education campaigns. The reason I quit my job in disgust and left Capitol Hill is because of the childish, self-destructive mudsling gossip the left unfortunately is addicted to.
This is the reason why neo-cons and corporate mafia rule the world. Because what allegedly passes for the so-called progressive movement repeatedly shoots itself in the foot - puts their foot in their mouth with nasty rants bickering and complaining about other left-y groups.
This highly self destructive, territorial, combative, duplicitious hijinks belongs in fourth grade - not among the behavior of adults - certainly not among folks who claim to be "progressive".
For the record - it is common knowledge all over Bay Area S.F. region that World Can't Wait and A.N.S.W.E.R. absolutely HATE each others guts. They stooped to highly public squabbling, held press conferences denouncing each other to the mainstream media and alternative press. Having burned its bridges in the Bay Area - then World Can't Wait decided to harrass, vilify, persecute the Pearcy's here in Sacramento with petty tantrums and mudslinging gossip.
I predict Sacramento folks will tire of WCW strong arm fundraising tactics - eventually WCE will roll over and play dead - disappear into the dust and pick another town to pounce on local peace activists - drive them absolutely bonkers - try to destroy the good deeds those groups do for peace in Iraq - then split town - move on - to go drive some other peace group crazy.
It pains me greatly to write this declaration - but somebody must do it.
Keep Hope Alive,
Colleen Marie-Blanchefleur Whalen
Sacramento Peace Activist and Seeker of Truth
"The Maoist model offers itself to security guards and students the world over as a tried and tested methodology of power, as a scientific strategy of national liberation. Generally known as Mao- Zedong-Thought(7), this science offers aspiring chairmen and cadres the prospect of unprecedented power over living beings, human activities and even thoughts. The pope and priests of the Catholic Church, with all their inquisitions and confessions, never had such power, not because they would have rejected it, but because they lacked the instruments made available by modern science and technology.
The liberation of the nation is the last stage in the elimination of parasites. Capitalism and already earlier cleared nature of parasites and reduced most of the rest of nature to raw materials for processing industries. Modern national socialism or social nationalism holds out the prospect of eliminating parasites from human society as well. The human parasites are usually sources of preliminary capital, but the capital is not always “material”; it can also be cultural or “spiritual”. The ways, myths, poetry and music of the people are liquidated as a matter of course; some of the music and costumes of the former “folk culture” subsequently reappear, processed and packaged, as elements of the national spectacle, as decorations for the national accumulation drives; the ways and myths become raw materials for processing by one or several of the “human sciences”. Even the useless resentment of workers toward their alienated wage labor is liquidated. When the nation is liberated, wage labor ceases to be an onerous burden and becomes a national obligation, to be carried out with joy. The inmates of a totally liberated nation read Orwell's 1984 as an anthropological study, a description of an earlier age."
Freddy Perlman
http://libcom.org/library/continuing-appeal-nationalism-fredy-perlman
"The ultra-centralism asked by Lenin is full of the sterile spirit of the overseer. It is not a positive and creative spirit. Lenin’s concern is not so much to make the activity of the party more fruitful as to control the party -- to narrow the movement rather than to develop it, to bind rather than to unify it."
Rosa Luxemburg
http://libcom.org/library/LeninismMarxismRosaLuxemburg1
"...Bureaucratic property is itself concentrated, in that the individual bureaucrat takes part in the ownership of the entire economy only through his membership in the community of bureaucrats. And since commodity production is less developed under bureaucratic capitalism, it too takes on a concentrated form: the commodity the bureaucracy appropriates is the total social labor, and what it sells back to the society is that society’s wholesale survival. The dictatorship of the bureaucratic economy cannot leave the exploited masses any significant margin of choice because it has had to make all the choices itself, and any choice made independently of it, whether regarding food or music or anything else, thus amounts to a declaration of war against it. This dictatorship must be enforced by permanent violence. Its spectacle imposes an image of the good which subsumes everything that officially exists, an image which is usually concentrated in a single individual, the guarantor of the system’s totalitarian cohesion. Everyone must magically identify with this absolute star or disappear. This master of everyone else’s nonconsumption is the heroic image that disguises the absolute exploitation entailed by the system of primitive accumulation accelerated by terror. If the entire Chinese population has to study Mao to the point of identifying with Mao, this is because there is nothing else they can be. The dominion of the concentrated spectacle is a police state."
-Guy Debord, _Society of the Spectacle_
POLITBURO OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE USSR THE KREMLIN MOSCOW
SHAKE IN YOUR SHOES BUREAUCRATS STOP THE INTERNATIONAL POWER OF THE WORKERS COUNCILS WILL SOON WIPE YOU OUT STOP HUMANITY WON’T BE HAPPY TILL THE LAST BUREAUCRAT IS HUNG WITH THE GUTS OF THE LAST CAPITALIST STOP LONG LIVE THE STRUGGLE OF THE KRONSTADT SAILORS AND OF THE MAKHNOVSHCHINA AGAINST TROTSKY AND LENIN STOP LONG LIVE THE 1956 COUNCILIST INSURRECTION OF BUDAPEST STOP DOWN WITH THE STATE STOP LONG LIVE REVOLUTIONARY MARXISM STOP OCCUPATION COMMITTEE OF THE PEOPLE’S FREE SORBONNE
POLITBURO OF THE CHINESE COMMUNIST PARTY GATE OF CELESTIAL PEACE PEKING
SHAKE IN YOUR SHOES BUREAUCRATS STOP THE INTERNATIONAL POWER OF THE WORKERS COUNCILS WILL SOON WIPE YOU OUT STOP HUMANITY WON’T BE HAPPY TILL THE LAST BUREAUCRAT IS HUNG WITH THE GUTS OF THE LAST CAPITALIST STOP LONG LIVE FACTORY OCCUPATIONS STOP LONG LIVE THE GREAT CHINESE PROLETARIAN REVOLUTION OF 1927 BETRAYED BY THE STALINIST BUREAUCRATS STOP LONG LIVE THE PROLETARIANS OF CANTON AND ELSEWHERE WHO HAVE TAKEN UP ARMS AGAINST THE SO-CALLED PEOPLE’S ARMY STOP LONG LIVE THE CHINESE WORKERS AND STUDENTS WHO HAVE ATTACKED THE SO-CALLED CULTURAL REVOLUTION AND THE MAOIST BUREAUCRATIC ORDER STOP LONG LIVE REVOLUTIONARY MARXISM STOP DOWN WITH THE STATE STOP OCCUPATION COMMITTEE OF THE PEOPLE’S FREE SORBONNE
17 May 1968
If the left is understood to include 'Bolshevism,' then I would flatly dissociate myself from the left. Lenin was one of the greatest enemies of socialism, in my opinion, for reasons I've discussed.
-Noam Chomsky
http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/rbr/noamrbr2.html
We all are living and working and trying to do our best on this beautiful earth that we are so lucky to be living on. Please, please all of you are brothers and sisters working to make a better world for the human race. Band together in peace and harmony. Remember the best changes for us have come from uniting together to pressure leaders to change laws and policies to benefit people. I plan to protest whenever and wherever possible, and hope that no one, especially ones who agree with me on peace and justice, will judge me or critisize me.
Right On! You Go Girl!
Gary was right.....listening to Ms.Craft on her show you'd think everyone from WCW and the other organization was either a commie or anarchist. Though she has never attended a 16th and Broadway peace demo before, she seems awfully concerned about the "artistic" flavor of the demonstrations and having her picture taken with one of those communists while there. Frankly I'm with Tina on this one. I'll protest for peace anytime anywhere I see fit, and I don't need the Pearcys or Ms. Crafts approval to do so. I appreciate what they have done in the past, and I've supported them both....but now I think it's degraded into a one step forward, two steps back effect. Thier continued public airing of thier squabble with other organizers is just discouraging people in Sacramento from coming out and protesting the war and bush policies. It's very disheartening for all involved in the peace community here, to have to be subjected to this seemingly endless bickering. If the "Peace Movement" can't settle a local turf war, what hope does that hold out for a global solution?
I think this is a good perspective on this situation. However, although Helen seems like she has her heart in the right place, she engages in the same type of lack of understanding that causes this bickering to continue. I've been to the Pearcy's rallies at 16th & Broadway and think that the Pearcy's did the right thing by raising their concerns about the direction these rallies were headed. I listened to the Pearcy's on Christine's show and they simply wanted the peace community to decide what type of anti-war rallies were appropriate for that location since it's a reflection on the entire peace community in Sacramento. Unfortunately, a lot of people have not been talking about this issue but rather about other side issues. I would like to see the peace community come together and discuss what would be beneficial for the entire peace community, instead of just some select group of individuals who have no desire to collaborate with others and want to simply protest whenever and wherever.
This non-issue has been hashed over and hashed over again - it is getting so boring! It's too bad that people's egos seem more important than ending the war or bringing down the Bush administration. What is particularly disgusting is all of the vile red-baiting that Christine Craft has thrown into the mix over who supposedly has the right to do a demonstration at a public corner. This is unbelievable - so-called "progressives" appear to be doing the work of the national security state in disrupting the Sacramento area anti-war movement. Is an agent-provocateur at work here?
It's people like "Geuine Activist" who try to distract us from engaging in a discussion of the real issue here. Please don't be distracted! The real issue is how peace demos should be organized at 16th & Broadway to have a positive impact on the community, not who is a member of the communist party or who called whom a member of the communist party. Please cease the name calling and focus on the real issue!
How is bringing down the Bush administration going to end the war? How will it prevent others? What is the likelyhood of bringing down the administration? What does it mean to bring it down? Why call for unity around something no one understands or explains? Would the world be a better place with Bob Avakian as Chairman? Is that the model of a future you are working for? Does it matter? Is it all to be swept under the carpet so we can all be "unified" with the RCP, ANSWER, the ISO, etc. etc.? Do their ideologies and tactics count for nothing in considering what kind of movement we participate in? Are they interested in a world by the working class, or just in representing the working class? Is unity against the war the most important thing? Will you really stand together with the "Operation mop up" crews of the Larouchites as one poster called for in this thread? I won't. Will you stand in solidarity with authoritarian socialists who have repeatedly crushed and stifled campus peace groups that they don't control? I won't.
See
http://userhttp://www.sfsu.edu/%7Emotopu/attemptfixisonuts.htm
and
http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php?story=01/11/12/2340074&query=why%2Bdid%2Biso%2Bhijack
and
http://www.worldcantwake.org/
For those who think that what form of organization the movement takes is unimportant, I beg to differ. Genuine activist, check your own ego and get to reading some history about the movement. A good place to start might be Maurice Brinton's _The Bolsheviks and Workers' Control_
http://www.spunk.org/texts/places/russia/sp001861/bolintro.html
Vanguard party leadership has a long track record and we owe it to the comrades who have been its victims to learn the lessons of its history. This is anything but a "non-issue" and if you look closely, you can see the stifling and counter-revolutionary, anti-democratic, effects of such groups all around you. There is a big difference between criticizing such groups and "working for the national-security state". A look at how some of these groups operate, and the theoretical basis for their ideology, might make you realize that they are the ones who embody such a model of operation. It's a failed model, and it should be thrown out. That's why people bring up these issues, not only liberal red baiting talk show hosts, but others from the Left of the groups in question.
Genuine Activist wrote:
This non-issue has been hashed over and hashed over again - it is getting so boring! It's too bad that people's egos seem more important than ending the war or bringing down the Bush administration. What is particularly disgusting is all of the vile red-baiting that Christine Craft has thrown into the mix over who supposedly has the right to do a demonstration at a public corner. This is unbelievable - so-called "progressives" appear to be doing the work of the national security state in disrupting the Sacramento area anti-war movement. Is an agent-provocateur at work here?
See
http://userhttp://www.sfsu.edu/%7Emotopu/attemptfixisonuts.htm
and
http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php?story=01/11/12/2340074&query=why%2Bdid%2Biso%2Bhijack
and
http://www.worldcantwake.org/
For those who think that what form of organization the movement takes is unimportant, I beg to differ. Genuine activist, check your own ego and get to reading some history about the movement. A good place to start might be Maurice Brinton's _The Bolsheviks and Workers' Control_
http://www.spunk.org/texts/places/russia/sp001861/bolintro.html
Vanguard party leadership has a long track record and we owe it to the comrades who have been its victims to learn the lessons of its history. This is anything but a "non-issue" and if you look closely, you can see the stifling and counter-revolutionary, anti-democratic, effects of such groups all around you. There is a big difference between criticizing such groups and "working for the national-security state". A look at how some of these groups operate, and the theoretical basis for their ideology, might make you realize that they are the ones who embody such a model of operation. It's a failed model, and it should be thrown out. That's why people bring up these issues, not only liberal red baiting talk show hosts, but others from the Left of the groups in question.
Genuine Activist wrote:
This non-issue has been hashed over and hashed over again - it is getting so boring! It's too bad that people's egos seem more important than ending the war or bringing down the Bush administration. What is particularly disgusting is all of the vile red-baiting that Christine Craft has thrown into the mix over who supposedly has the right to do a demonstration at a public corner. This is unbelievable - so-called "progressives" appear to be doing the work of the national security state in disrupting the Sacramento area anti-war movement. Is an agent-provocateur at work here?
Try this link below, I think it posts ok if I put it in the url link portion of the message. This report is pretty useful to see the dark side of authoritarian "activist" groups.
Link won't post. Just google "ISOnuts" and you'll get it.
I believe this is an inescapable truth. I also think they have trouble cooperating with others that don't share their views. Am I wrong? Just look at this situation.
The Pearcys started organizing and hosting anti-Iraq war/anti-Administration rallies last summer at an intersection near their home. There had not been any political rallies held there in decades, if not ever. These rallies were very successful, if one measures success by number of participants, media attention and attention of passing motorists. Certain political organizations/activists, seeing how successful these rallies were, wanted to host their own rallies at this same location. The Pearcys asked that they not do this out of courtesy and so that they could continue to build on what they had started. These organizations/individuals refused and started a smear campaign against the Pearcys. These organizations/individuals represent the extreme Left (Marxists & Communists). The evidence speaks for itself.
The Pearcys started organizing and hosting anti-Iraq war/anti-Administration rallies last summer at an intersection near their home. There had not been any political rallies held there in decades, if not ever. These rallies were very successful, if one measures success by number of participants, media attention and attention of passing motorists. Certain political organizations/activists, seeing how successful these rallies were, wanted to host their own rallies at this same location. The Pearcys asked that they not do this out of courtesy and so that they could continue to build on what they had started. These organizations/individuals refused and started a smear campaign against the Pearcys. These organizations/individuals represent the extreme Left (Marxists & Communists). The evidence speaks for itself.
[The Pearcys started organizing and hosting anti-Iraq war/anti-Administration rallies last summer at an intersection near their home. There had not been any political rallies held there in decades, if not ever. These rallies were very successful, if one measures success by number of participants, media attention and attention of passing motorists. Certain political organizations/activists, seeing how successful these rallies were, wanted to host their own rallies at this same location. The Pearcys asked that they not do this out of courtesy and so that they could continue to build on what they had started. These organizations/individuals refused and started a smear campaign against the Pearcys. These organizations/individuals represent the extreme Left (Marxists & Communists). The evidence speaks for itself.]
. . . I measure success by a different standard, and that standard is whether the protest activity is based upon an intellectually and politically honest understanding of the war, the occupation and the people who have caused them and perpetuate them.
Because, otherwise, it is impossible to engage people sincerely about this issue, which, in this instance, involves some painful honesty about the culpability of the Democrats in launching and perpetuating the war in Iraq.
See my remarks here:
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/06/12/18280344.php
Or here:
http://amleft.blogspot.com/archives/2006_06_01_amleft_archive.html#115023442048053006
By that standard, the protests failed, despite the no doubt sincere efforts of the organizers and participants.
As to the evidence being clear, other than a belief that the Pearcys have a proprietary right to conduct protests at 16th and Broadway over and above anyone they and their supporters consider objectionable, I'm not seeing it.
As an analogy, I guess because ANSWER has conducted so many large protests at Civic Center and Dolores Park in SF, that means that no one else should use these venues without the approval of ANSWER.
Nor has anyone explained how Ruth Holbrook and George McAdow constitute the extreme left.
Given their history in labor, civil rights, and antiwar activities in Sacramento, I'd suggest a different approach to dealing with them, at least if you want to avoid alienating a lot of people who have known them over the years.
--Richard Estes
. . . I measure success by a different standard, and that standard is whether the protest activity is based upon an intellectually and politically honest understanding of the war, the occupation and the people who have caused them and perpetuate them.
Because, otherwise, it is impossible to engage people sincerely about this issue, which, in this instance, involves some painful honesty about the culpability of the Democrats in launching and perpetuating the war in Iraq.
See my remarks here:
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/06/12/18280344.php
Or here:
http://amleft.blogspot.com/archives/2006_06_01_amleft_archive.html#115023442048053006
By that standard, the protests failed, despite the no doubt sincere efforts of the organizers and participants.
As to the evidence being clear, other than a belief that the Pearcys have a proprietary right to conduct protests at 16th and Broadway over and above anyone they and their supporters consider objectionable, I'm not seeing it.
As an analogy, I guess because ANSWER has conducted so many large protests at Civic Center and Dolores Park in SF, that means that no one else should use these venues without the approval of ANSWER.
Nor has anyone explained how Ruth Holbrook and George McAdow constitute the extreme left.
Given their history in labor, civil rights, and antiwar activities in Sacramento, I'd suggest a different approach to dealing with them, at least if you want to avoid alienating a lot of people who have known them over the years.
--Richard Estes
Don Tosaw: The extreme Left and the extreme Right both tend to be very authoritarian. I believe this is an inescapable truth.
naa: The center is never authoritarian? Your job is not authoritarian? Your church is not authoritarian? Your school is not? An Authoritarian structure is one where you lack any real input into what is going on. That is our entire society in a nutshell, not just the extreme right or left. Many authoritarian socialist groups reflect this, but there is no point in saying that "Marxists" or "Communists" are inherently authoritarian (some are). Marxists come in all types. Marxism is just a method of analyzing economic and social relations in a society, pointing out the mythology used by apologists for the system, and calling for change based on what is known. Anarchism is an inherently anti-authoritarian, also broadly varying, world view, which believes, as do many communists, that people should control their own lives, their own production and consumption, without any overseers, middle men to extract wealth from them, or Gods or other authorities to maintain the order of the State, which itself exists to maintain capitalist production. This self-control is achieved through mutual aid and cooperation which is seen as more efficient and humane than cut throat competition and a system of production which can't factor in quality of life issues in its relentless pursuit of accumulating wealth.
Capitalism on the other hand is inherently authoritarian. The very base of it is designed to keep people powerless. People work for a wage, and this wage is only partial compensation for the actual wealth they create, with the "surplus" (unpaid portion) gong to capitalists. Those who own the means of production have workers in a position where all workers have to sell is their own labor. By working, they reproduce the very system that keeps them in the position of creating wealth for others, and then using their wages to buy back labor (embodied in commodities) at a dearer price. Jobs with bosses, corporations, etc. are all inherently anti-democratic top down hierarchies. This is what being alienated from your own labor refers to. This is the "moderate" "status quo" which liberals defend as the "center" between the "extremism" of the right and left. This is a false continuum, and the real question is how to get out of the present system into one in which people control their own destinies. Until this is addressed, there will be little hope for stopping wars which are largely fought to maintain this very system of wealth accumulation.
Don Tosaw:
I also think they have trouble cooperating with others that don't share their views. Am I wrong?
naa: If you mean by "they" anarchists or Marxists, it is a mixed bag. There are actually the same types of personalities found in those groups as you might encounter in any situation, and so yes there are authoritarians. If there is any focus worth rallying around, one is defending all workers from the exploitation of capitalists. But many of the party line groups don't stand in solidarity with workers. They instead stand as outside vanguards who believe they have sufficient enlightenment and are needed to steer and control the masses, for their own good of course. This goes beyond "educating" people, and emerges in all manner of controlling behaviors, from phony "Robert's Rules" pre-planned sabotage of democratic gatherings, to infiltrating groups, or putting out front groups to draw people into their parties. It is disingenuous, and extremely anti-democratic, but no more so than normal life under capitalism, which strips people of input and makes them into passive consumers of their own dreams (in mass produced form).
Don Tosaw:
Just look at this situation.
The Pearcys started organizing and hosting anti-Iraq war/anti-Administration rallies last summer at an intersection near their home. There had not been any political rallies held there in decades, if not ever. These rallies were very successful, if one measures success by number of participants, media attention and attention of passing motorists.
naa: Anyone should have the right to hold an innefectual rally whereever they choose. Success might be measured by how much anyone was able to come up with tactics that meet the need of the present situation in creating possiblities to move beyond the rigid set of prefigured roles people play. "Activist" being one safe, mostly ineffectual role which threatens to change nothing, don't you think? I'm not saying stop caring, or even marching in rallies, but why not try to think of things that have meaningful effect? The massive general strike by immigrants recently seemed to have a lot of possiblities, and it was also very grass roots from what was seen. It was an example of the working class standing up for itself against expectations, the media, against union bosses even, and flexing the power of ordinary people. The so called "vanguards" were totally superfluous in this case, as they usually are. Another example is the recent attempts to shut down war shipments, in the form of Stryker vehicles, from the Olympia port. Imagine a series of such actions which grow in proportion, and consider what kind of real effect this could have, not only in stopping a war, but in empowering people to the idea of controlling their own lives and communities.
I do think that if people in a given community agree they don't want these RCP type groups at their rallies or whatever, they should make it clear, and hopefully the decision will be arrived at in a genuinely fair and democratic way, rather than just some charismatic leader pushing an agenda. The authoritarian groups often lie and claim that "at least with us, you see the process and how decisions are made" (utterly untrue) while with consensus the strongest leaders can sway the outcome. They are wrong in their claim that their methods represent democracy, as core party groups of activists who are representing these groups both plan an event to meet a certain sure outcome, and stack delegations with enough party members to ensure a vote in their favor, as has happened at the Campus Anti-War Network conferences. But they are correct that just having consensus is no guarantee that decisions are inclusive or fair, and ensuring this is a constant struggle, which can only be worked out when people feel comfortable enough to really express themselves, including dissenting views. Of course one dissenting view might be "I want to work with authoritarian groups who rationalize Kronstadt and infiltrate other groups and use the term red baiter as a method of controlling dissent". At that point, people have to decide to split or keep hashing things out, no easy solutions. But it seems legitimate to me that, if people have had bad experiences with certain groups, they should avoid working with them, and if they don't believe in their goals (state capitalist bureaucratic authoritarianism) they should make it known, instead elaborating what they DO WANT, and then working on the theoretical and active ways of achieving it.
Don Tosaw:
Certain political organizations/activists, seeing how successful these rallies were, wanted to host their own rallies at this same location. The Pearcys asked that they not do this out of courtesy and so that they could continue to build on what they had started. These organizations/individuals refused and started a smear campaign against the Pearcys. These organizations/individuals represent the extreme Left (Marxists & Communists). The evidence speaks for itself.
naa: Why are the Pearcys making the decisions here (or is this a misrepresentation)? Is that democratic? Are they the self appointed leaders of this little group? Perhaps they would have a different take on it. Maybe they are not making the decisions, I don't know, but if they are, that seems to be an already problematic model. Hopefully everyone who wants to will participate in debating this issue and finding a way forward.
naa: The center is never authoritarian? Your job is not authoritarian? Your church is not authoritarian? Your school is not? An Authoritarian structure is one where you lack any real input into what is going on. That is our entire society in a nutshell, not just the extreme right or left. Many authoritarian socialist groups reflect this, but there is no point in saying that "Marxists" or "Communists" are inherently authoritarian (some are). Marxists come in all types. Marxism is just a method of analyzing economic and social relations in a society, pointing out the mythology used by apologists for the system, and calling for change based on what is known. Anarchism is an inherently anti-authoritarian, also broadly varying, world view, which believes, as do many communists, that people should control their own lives, their own production and consumption, without any overseers, middle men to extract wealth from them, or Gods or other authorities to maintain the order of the State, which itself exists to maintain capitalist production. This self-control is achieved through mutual aid and cooperation which is seen as more efficient and humane than cut throat competition and a system of production which can't factor in quality of life issues in its relentless pursuit of accumulating wealth.
Capitalism on the other hand is inherently authoritarian. The very base of it is designed to keep people powerless. People work for a wage, and this wage is only partial compensation for the actual wealth they create, with the "surplus" (unpaid portion) gong to capitalists. Those who own the means of production have workers in a position where all workers have to sell is their own labor. By working, they reproduce the very system that keeps them in the position of creating wealth for others, and then using their wages to buy back labor (embodied in commodities) at a dearer price. Jobs with bosses, corporations, etc. are all inherently anti-democratic top down hierarchies. This is what being alienated from your own labor refers to. This is the "moderate" "status quo" which liberals defend as the "center" between the "extremism" of the right and left. This is a false continuum, and the real question is how to get out of the present system into one in which people control their own destinies. Until this is addressed, there will be little hope for stopping wars which are largely fought to maintain this very system of wealth accumulation.
Don Tosaw:
I also think they have trouble cooperating with others that don't share their views. Am I wrong?
naa: If you mean by "they" anarchists or Marxists, it is a mixed bag. There are actually the same types of personalities found in those groups as you might encounter in any situation, and so yes there are authoritarians. If there is any focus worth rallying around, one is defending all workers from the exploitation of capitalists. But many of the party line groups don't stand in solidarity with workers. They instead stand as outside vanguards who believe they have sufficient enlightenment and are needed to steer and control the masses, for their own good of course. This goes beyond "educating" people, and emerges in all manner of controlling behaviors, from phony "Robert's Rules" pre-planned sabotage of democratic gatherings, to infiltrating groups, or putting out front groups to draw people into their parties. It is disingenuous, and extremely anti-democratic, but no more so than normal life under capitalism, which strips people of input and makes them into passive consumers of their own dreams (in mass produced form).
Don Tosaw:
Just look at this situation.
The Pearcys started organizing and hosting anti-Iraq war/anti-Administration rallies last summer at an intersection near their home. There had not been any political rallies held there in decades, if not ever. These rallies were very successful, if one measures success by number of participants, media attention and attention of passing motorists.
naa: Anyone should have the right to hold an innefectual rally whereever they choose. Success might be measured by how much anyone was able to come up with tactics that meet the need of the present situation in creating possiblities to move beyond the rigid set of prefigured roles people play. "Activist" being one safe, mostly ineffectual role which threatens to change nothing, don't you think? I'm not saying stop caring, or even marching in rallies, but why not try to think of things that have meaningful effect? The massive general strike by immigrants recently seemed to have a lot of possiblities, and it was also very grass roots from what was seen. It was an example of the working class standing up for itself against expectations, the media, against union bosses even, and flexing the power of ordinary people. The so called "vanguards" were totally superfluous in this case, as they usually are. Another example is the recent attempts to shut down war shipments, in the form of Stryker vehicles, from the Olympia port. Imagine a series of such actions which grow in proportion, and consider what kind of real effect this could have, not only in stopping a war, but in empowering people to the idea of controlling their own lives and communities.
I do think that if people in a given community agree they don't want these RCP type groups at their rallies or whatever, they should make it clear, and hopefully the decision will be arrived at in a genuinely fair and democratic way, rather than just some charismatic leader pushing an agenda. The authoritarian groups often lie and claim that "at least with us, you see the process and how decisions are made" (utterly untrue) while with consensus the strongest leaders can sway the outcome. They are wrong in their claim that their methods represent democracy, as core party groups of activists who are representing these groups both plan an event to meet a certain sure outcome, and stack delegations with enough party members to ensure a vote in their favor, as has happened at the Campus Anti-War Network conferences. But they are correct that just having consensus is no guarantee that decisions are inclusive or fair, and ensuring this is a constant struggle, which can only be worked out when people feel comfortable enough to really express themselves, including dissenting views. Of course one dissenting view might be "I want to work with authoritarian groups who rationalize Kronstadt and infiltrate other groups and use the term red baiter as a method of controlling dissent". At that point, people have to decide to split or keep hashing things out, no easy solutions. But it seems legitimate to me that, if people have had bad experiences with certain groups, they should avoid working with them, and if they don't believe in their goals (state capitalist bureaucratic authoritarianism) they should make it known, instead elaborating what they DO WANT, and then working on the theoretical and active ways of achieving it.
Don Tosaw:
Certain political organizations/activists, seeing how successful these rallies were, wanted to host their own rallies at this same location. The Pearcys asked that they not do this out of courtesy and so that they could continue to build on what they had started. These organizations/individuals refused and started a smear campaign against the Pearcys. These organizations/individuals represent the extreme Left (Marxists & Communists). The evidence speaks for itself.
naa: Why are the Pearcys making the decisions here (or is this a misrepresentation)? Is that democratic? Are they the self appointed leaders of this little group? Perhaps they would have a different take on it. Maybe they are not making the decisions, I don't know, but if they are, that seems to be an already problematic model. Hopefully everyone who wants to will participate in debating this issue and finding a way forward.
I want to preface this by saying that my heart breaks for the local people in Sacto (and other cities) who have started great protests and other traditions that have been taken over by World Can't Wait and groups like it.
Hi,
World Can't Wait is what we call a "front group" for the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA (http://revcom.us/rcp-e.htm). A lot of people don't find the fact that they are communists to be the problem, or the fact that they are "Marxists" (most labor activists are, if you think about that)-- it's that they are into "MLM" (Marxist-Leninist Maoism) and are basically a cult led by "Chairman" (for life?) Bob Avakian.
A lot of these communist and socialist parties have front groups, which work on what they call a "united front," with a statement of their positions, which were invented by party members and "supporters" and some invited friends. The RCP has had a bunch of front groups, from October 22nd Coalition to Refuse and Resist to Not in Our Name (NION)-- they have mostly abandoned all of their front groups in order to focus on World Can't Wait.
The worst part about all of this is that the "World Can't Wait -- Drive Out the Bush Regime" slogan doesn't even mention their goal, which would basically be to replace Bush with Bob Avakian. They make it sound like getting Bush out would solve all the problems out there, but let's face it, Kerry wouldn't have gotten the US out of Iraq, Gore couldn't have avoided getting us there in the first place, and even if you get a Green Party candidate elected, there is still the military industrial complex (including the military and companies like Lockheed, Raytheon, Bechtel, etc, along with US "intelligence" groups and others who would want to go to war), so it is unavoidable.
The above info on World Can't Wait is not redbaiting. If the CIA/FBI/NSA cares at all about these front groups, then they have already infiltrated them. If people are against redbaiting, it means that they have something to fear-- is it being exposed as some weirdo group, or is it that the government will "find out" that they are a member of the group?
i call it like it is. I base things that I write on my experiences. I don't like communist groups because they believe in having a state. I don't like the RCP because it is like a cult, and because its members and the group itself (along with front groups) have acted in ways that show that they don't really have the "interests" of "the people" at heart.
http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php?story=20051203143218921
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Communist_Party%2C_USA
Hi,
World Can't Wait is what we call a "front group" for the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA (http://revcom.us/rcp-e.htm). A lot of people don't find the fact that they are communists to be the problem, or the fact that they are "Marxists" (most labor activists are, if you think about that)-- it's that they are into "MLM" (Marxist-Leninist Maoism) and are basically a cult led by "Chairman" (for life?) Bob Avakian.
A lot of these communist and socialist parties have front groups, which work on what they call a "united front," with a statement of their positions, which were invented by party members and "supporters" and some invited friends. The RCP has had a bunch of front groups, from October 22nd Coalition to Refuse and Resist to Not in Our Name (NION)-- they have mostly abandoned all of their front groups in order to focus on World Can't Wait.
The worst part about all of this is that the "World Can't Wait -- Drive Out the Bush Regime" slogan doesn't even mention their goal, which would basically be to replace Bush with Bob Avakian. They make it sound like getting Bush out would solve all the problems out there, but let's face it, Kerry wouldn't have gotten the US out of Iraq, Gore couldn't have avoided getting us there in the first place, and even if you get a Green Party candidate elected, there is still the military industrial complex (including the military and companies like Lockheed, Raytheon, Bechtel, etc, along with US "intelligence" groups and others who would want to go to war), so it is unavoidable.
The above info on World Can't Wait is not redbaiting. If the CIA/FBI/NSA cares at all about these front groups, then they have already infiltrated them. If people are against redbaiting, it means that they have something to fear-- is it being exposed as some weirdo group, or is it that the government will "find out" that they are a member of the group?
i call it like it is. I base things that I write on my experiences. I don't like communist groups because they believe in having a state. I don't like the RCP because it is like a cult, and because its members and the group itself (along with front groups) have acted in ways that show that they don't really have the "interests" of "the people" at heart.
http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php?story=20051203143218921
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Communist_Party%2C_USA
anarchist wrote:
"The worst part about all of this is that the "World Can't Wait -- Drive Out the Bush Regime" slogan doesn't even mention their goal, which would basically be to replace Bush with Bob Avakian. They make it sound like getting Bush out would solve all the problems out there, but let's face it, Kerry wouldn't have gotten the US out of Iraq, Gore couldn't have avoided getting us there in the first place, and even if you get a Green Party candidate elected, there is still the military industrial complex (including the military and companies like Lockheed, Raytheon, Bechtel, etc, along with US "intelligence" groups and others who would want to go to war), so it is unavoidable."
To say that Kerry wouldn't have gotten the US out of Iraq or that Gore couldn't have avoided invading Iraq is...well, you did say you were an anarchist and therefore believe that good government is impossible. Never mind.
"The worst part about all of this is that the "World Can't Wait -- Drive Out the Bush Regime" slogan doesn't even mention their goal, which would basically be to replace Bush with Bob Avakian. They make it sound like getting Bush out would solve all the problems out there, but let's face it, Kerry wouldn't have gotten the US out of Iraq, Gore couldn't have avoided getting us there in the first place, and even if you get a Green Party candidate elected, there is still the military industrial complex (including the military and companies like Lockheed, Raytheon, Bechtel, etc, along with US "intelligence" groups and others who would want to go to war), so it is unavoidable."
To say that Kerry wouldn't have gotten the US out of Iraq or that Gore couldn't have avoided invading Iraq is...well, you did say you were an anarchist and therefore believe that good government is impossible. Never mind.
First, I want to thank everyone for providing the info about WCW and sharing their experiences with this group. It looks like we've got a problem on our hands here in Sac.
[anarchist wrote:
"The worst part about all of this is that the "World Can't Wait -- Drive Out the Bush Regime" slogan doesn't even mention their goal, which would basically be to replace Bush with Bob Avakian. They make it sound like getting Bush out would solve all the problems out there, but let's face it, Kerry wouldn't have gotten the US out of Iraq, Gore couldn't have avoided getting us there in the first place, and even if you get a Green Party candidate elected, there is still the military industrial complex (including the military and companies like Lockheed, Raytheon, Bechtel, etc, along with US "intelligence" groups and others who would want to go to war), so it is unavoidable."
To say that Kerry wouldn't have gotten the US out of Iraq or that Gore couldn't have avoided invading Iraq is...well, you did say you were an anarchist and therefore believe that good government is impossible. Never mind.]
Contrary to what you posted here, a joke does not substitute for political analysis. Fact is, we don't know if Kerry would have gotten the US out of Iraq, just like we don't know if Gore would have resisted pressure to invade Iraq. After all, his Vice President, Joseph Lieberman, would have been the lead cheerleader, flinging Gore's past bellicose pronouncements about Saddam Hussein in his face. Contrasting a horrible Republican present with an idealized, fantasized Democratic alternative, where we just assume that Gore and Kerry would have done everything well is alluring, but, ultimately, not very persuasive. I guess that we are just supposed to accept your superior political insight on these questions on faith, which is kind of ironic, given that it's the Bush Administration that is known for being faith based (oops, I guess I made my own joke).
But I guess that it's the only way to deflect attention from a very detailed, thoughtful post by "not an anarchist" that raises a lot of profound questions that people should seriously engage, instead of dismissing them with such condescending humor.
Anyway, let's concede that you are correct about everything, I still have some questions: do you support the concept of rallies and events against the war and occupation in Iraq that focus honestly on who is responsible for them, and seeks to hold them politically accountable for their actions, regardless of their party affiliation, instead of organizing around the myth that they are solely the responsibility of Bush and the Republicans? Do support the concept of expanding these rallies and events to emphasize the impending peril of a war against Iran, urging people to confront both Democrats and Republicans who are trying to incite the President to launch this conflict?
If so, great. If not, why not?
--Richard Estes
"The worst part about all of this is that the "World Can't Wait -- Drive Out the Bush Regime" slogan doesn't even mention their goal, which would basically be to replace Bush with Bob Avakian. They make it sound like getting Bush out would solve all the problems out there, but let's face it, Kerry wouldn't have gotten the US out of Iraq, Gore couldn't have avoided getting us there in the first place, and even if you get a Green Party candidate elected, there is still the military industrial complex (including the military and companies like Lockheed, Raytheon, Bechtel, etc, along with US "intelligence" groups and others who would want to go to war), so it is unavoidable."
To say that Kerry wouldn't have gotten the US out of Iraq or that Gore couldn't have avoided invading Iraq is...well, you did say you were an anarchist and therefore believe that good government is impossible. Never mind.]
Contrary to what you posted here, a joke does not substitute for political analysis. Fact is, we don't know if Kerry would have gotten the US out of Iraq, just like we don't know if Gore would have resisted pressure to invade Iraq. After all, his Vice President, Joseph Lieberman, would have been the lead cheerleader, flinging Gore's past bellicose pronouncements about Saddam Hussein in his face. Contrasting a horrible Republican present with an idealized, fantasized Democratic alternative, where we just assume that Gore and Kerry would have done everything well is alluring, but, ultimately, not very persuasive. I guess that we are just supposed to accept your superior political insight on these questions on faith, which is kind of ironic, given that it's the Bush Administration that is known for being faith based (oops, I guess I made my own joke).
But I guess that it's the only way to deflect attention from a very detailed, thoughtful post by "not an anarchist" that raises a lot of profound questions that people should seriously engage, instead of dismissing them with such condescending humor.
Anyway, let's concede that you are correct about everything, I still have some questions: do you support the concept of rallies and events against the war and occupation in Iraq that focus honestly on who is responsible for them, and seeks to hold them politically accountable for their actions, regardless of their party affiliation, instead of organizing around the myth that they are solely the responsibility of Bush and the Republicans? Do support the concept of expanding these rallies and events to emphasize the impending peril of a war against Iran, urging people to confront both Democrats and Republicans who are trying to incite the President to launch this conflict?
If so, great. If not, why not?
--Richard Estes
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$75.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network