community-based, non-corporate, participatory media
Account of PAPV march/rally
by johnrpgh
Saturday, Sep. 06, 2003 at 4:08 PM
for pgh indymedia
At around 2:30 people came out of the church and we started marching on the sidewalk towards the road with the municipal building on it. The permit was for that street only, so after crossing the police barricade we continued on to the municipal building where there was a short rally. Some people spoke, and we were told to march on the sidewalk back to the church.
My account is short because this was very...very short. I was expecting a higher turnout, and a lot more excitement about the march. It seemed after we went half a block and we all stopped, people were standing around confused saying to each other "...That was the march? Are we going somewhere else?" The permit was only good until 3 o'clock, and the rally/march should have started long before 2-2:30. We had no time to get anything done, and the march should have been much longer touching more areas.
Despite being yelled at by some guy for marching in the street when we still had a permit and the cops weren't anywhere around, and making a banner for no real reason...the rally had good speakers.
Sorry
by Renee
Sunday, Sep. 07, 2003 at 6:13 AM
Renee_Wilson_7@msn.com
I am sorry you felt like that but with the smear job the police was doing this hurt the cowrd. There was things I could not do because of going to jail and like the permt to get the streets blocked by the church it was not paid for so we didnot want to do that. I was happy to see the people I seen there to be honest. we will keep working to make it better but right now I am PAPV we need more people to run it come and give a hand.
Renee
no apologies needed from Renee
by .
Sunday, Sep. 07, 2003 at 7:04 AM
Renee needn't apologize -- her words were great and the turnout was good thanks to her grassroots organizing.
however it is very frustrating and demoralizing to work with certain white men who can actually chant "no justice no peace" while ordering others to get the hell onto the sidewalk. this includes certain SWP cadres who have no respect for the african-american community but want to exploit it in order to push their agenda, and more importantly their shitty newspapers and overpriced books. while it was great to see so many different people at this event (hundreds turned out!), the fact that certain authoritarians can opportunistically take control of a powerful grassroots cause is truly disturbing.
i am saddened to say that i once respected pete shell and nathaniel glosser -- but after saturday it seems clear that they only intend to feign militancy against police violence in order to get the support of a community that feels very strongly about the issue. then, they can start asking for our credit card numbers (wtf?? that sounded like a fucking televangelist) and order everyone out of the streets, just like the cops do. when Gordon from the BRC took the mike at the end and started speaking the kind of straight up unapologetically radical words that most people feel about the situation, pete and nathaniel turned off his microphone and ordered everyone off of the street.
SHAME.
best chant of the day: "no justice, no peace marshalls"
Renee, please keep organizing hard but please remember that everyone out here is behind you EQUALLY. certain people need to realize that they are NOT automatically more important within the "movement" just because they're white and they have rich families backing them up. RESPECT everyone who stands on the street with you, please do not exploit us for money and order us around like cops. then we can REALLY organize a more just society instead of repeating the same mistakes over and over.
yes but one thing
by &
Sunday, Sep. 07, 2003 at 7:42 AM
"*" - i agree with you 99% and no renee doesn't need to apologize. the ones who need to think about apologizing are the ones who didn't show up.
one thing though, i don't know if gordeon was the guy who had the mike switched off or whether he was the one who said this, but is it really smart for people to stand there with the mike - therefore representing the march and marchers - and talk about the police as being 'lazy animals' for example?
it makes me as mad as anyone to have to walk by a bunch of police officers trying the best they can to look like some new third reich army, and who know all too well that they're the ones with the guns and the cars, but it's not smart to say these things, not only because not all police officers are bad (no they're not) but also because if we're ever going to get those 'good' officers to stand up and be counted and if we're ever going to win support from the general population, then we need to not make all-out accusations like that. by doing that we're backing ourselves into a corner and we're lowering ourselves to their standards, (well we're moving in that direction anyways). so what are these marches for, what are we? are we for creating peace in the community and seeking justice or are we for venting our - well justfied - feelings by throwing names around? is this how we're going to be effective in the long run?
i think the debate needs to be opened up. i will continue to go to these marches because the cause is too important but i think this issue needs to be dealt with.
.
by johnrpgh
Sunday, Sep. 07, 2003 at 9:11 AM
No apologies needed Renee, i understand that because of the circumstances regarding your arrest and your loved ones it couldn't be as good as some wanted it to be. When organizing future marches I'd love to help out, just send me an e-mail.
Also, I think gordon should speak at more rallies. He's a good speaker.
And I'd like to smack people who chant "No Justice, No Peace" but are afraid to stand up to the police in any way.
email
by johnrpgh
Sunday, Sep. 07, 2003 at 9:12 AM
...and i forgot to put my email so you can contact me.
DumpsterDiver@riseup.net
No Justice No Peace
by ~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sunday, Sep. 07, 2003 at 7:22 PM
Personally I would have had no problem marching thru the entire Mt. Oliver business district. Per mit or no permit. We should have got behind the NO JUSTICE NO PEACE banner NOT told it's carriers to get on the sidewalk. Endangering the safety of the march? Come on. We come out to fight oppression. If you don't want to remain in the street - get on the sidewalk like your told, but don't force your opinions on others.
I agree - certain people should not be chanting NO JUSTICE NO PEACE if they are not willing to follow thru on it. I thought all the speakers were good. The final speaker was exactly the kind of person WHO SHOULD SPEAK @ a demo like Saturdays. Empowered, emotional speech like that motivates people. It makes you realize why we were there in plain and simple English. And it is the kind of English that should preceed a march. I realize the part about the permit running out @ 3PM but lets not cut someone off like that. I wanted to hear what else the man had to say.
As far as asking for credit card #'s at a rally...............I think it's pretty fucking incredible that Nathaniel took out a mortgage on his home to post Renee's bail. At the same time, asking for credits card #'s does sound like a TV evangelist. I didn't appreciate it either.
The turnout can always be more, numbers greater, but the folks who did show up showed a great deal of diversity and unity. That was really awesome. Thanks to the Lighthouse Church, Renee and eveyone else involved. We are ready to demonstrate in Mt. Oliver and other locations when you need us.
re: attacks on SWP and others
by Saleh
Sunday, Sep. 07, 2003 at 9:06 PM
salehw@yahoo.com
to the person(s) who made the attacks on the SWP, Pete, Nate, and others:
you've publicly made a very serious charge that the SWP and others are exploiting a grassroots movement for their own agenda, without offering concrete evidence (on that charge specifically), and to make it worse you've done it anonymously so it's difficult to hold you accountable to the serious charges you make.
From what I've seen with the activists in the local SWP they've been there to assist in any way needed/requested and to offer their advice, I've never seen the current group here try to exploit a grassroots movement to bolster themselves, and there's nothing wrong with selling or distributing literature at political events. Please check yourself to make sure you've actually got evidence for what you say and aren't just making a leap based on your fantasies and fears about cadre organizations.
You've also said they (SWP) have no respect for the African-American community - I've seen just the opposite whenever I've done work with them or seen them at work.
Opportunism? subverting grassroots resistance? Yes, I've seen that going around by the truckload, but not from the so-called "authoritarian" quarters. Racism and white privilege? In my opinion I've seen that much more often from the different sides complaining about "authoritarianism" then I have from the targets of these attacks. Please explain what you mean by these words because:
* It's strange that you object to the offer to take credit cards - Renee has asked for donations several times, and the cash people carry doesn't always match the donations they want to make when doing mass political work. Nate offered them a way to donate without being limited by the cash they carry. It's odd to compare this to an evangelist because you're just looking at content and not character, a common thing I've seen with people who complain about so-called "authoritarians". What's wrong with a televangelist is not that they ask for credit cards, but that they scare people with talk of fire and brimstones or delude them into thinking they are fighting for good and against evil, or in one case that god will kill the televangelist if they don't get enough money. In this case a basic look at the material facts shows that this *is* a cause worth supporting, and there are many ways people can give to it at a political event.
* I don't know the full details of what marshalling people may or may not have done, but doing permitted events can be resistance too, and part of "no justice no peace". Maybe in the future we'll see mass non-permitted actions by the communities effected, but until then let's respect the call of the person doing the grunt work here because there's a long way till we get there.
if you're going to make serious accusations like that, please offer direct evidence, and give some way for people to get back to you so others can make their own well-formed opinions.
Saleh
ps - oh yeah, and just because I'm defending the SWP and Pete and Nate from these attacks, don't say that I'm part of their agenda or in the cahoots with them without being able to back that up too.
Swoops
by teamsterturtle
Monday, Sep. 08, 2003 at 9:27 AM
OK. Let's talk about the SWP. I have never been involved, but know several ex-SWPers. Most don't even want to talk about the days when they were involved.
I do feel that SWPers are very respectful and genuine in their relations with ethnic and racial minority groups. And I think that sometimes the language of "intervention" (used by NEFAC as well) can be confusing to people outside the organization. By intervention, it is not meant that a group desires to take-over an organization (which may, in fact, be the case in some instances with some groups), but that the group's members intervene with a more "radical" perspective, hoping to both win other members of the movement to their perspective (or at least, more in that direction), and also to learn from experience by communicating with people involved in the struggle and synthesizing theory with practice. What's wrong with that?
However, with the best of intentions, the SWP has wrecked many lives -- usually through democratic-centralist dictates of their national committee. And thinking of oneself as a member of the vanguard, one does seek to "lead" or, perhaps, take control over other organizations. I think this has to do, in part, with the practice of democratic centralism in Trotskyist groupings, which results in splits and purges as factions vie for control of the national leadership and argue about the correct "program."
I don't know the intentions of the SWPers in Pittsburgh, but I can see why people might have some concerns, both based on their politics, and past practice in other groups.
sweeping swoops
by Saleh
Monday, Sep. 08, 2003 at 11:42 AM
salehw@yahoo.com
Hi - those criticisms of the SWP you cited, whether true or not (and the criticisms are well-known), have nothing to do with the local group's work with PAPV from what I've seen since going to PAPV meetings and demos since January. If this is what the author had in mind then it's what I suspected, generalizations being turned into an accusation without any real evidence. Let's separate general experiences with SWP branches from what happened on Saturday unless there's concrete, material evidence.
Aside from this, there's a lot of corrupt and flipped-on-their head definitions on this site on terms like vanguardism, democratic centralism, etc. (basically anything Marxist or Leninist). This isn't the best place to discuss the ideas, but if people are going to use those terms please do some serious reading of the texts they come from and not just go by general criticisms of those ideas by people who don't bother to cite or do a serious reading of the original sources. Be careful about making accusations and attacks because they hurt and do a lot of damage, make sure you've really thought about it first.
Barnes can eat my shorts
by teamsterturtle
Monday, Sep. 08, 2003 at 2:56 PM
Saleh,
I'm sorry my comments have no merit as I did not include citations. Look, citations aren't everything, though I will say I have done some extensive reading (more than most) on Trotskyism and its different tendencies. I'm saying that I've spoken to real people who have been involved, not academics studying from afar. Though I disagree politically with the SWP, I have a lot more respect for the organization in the WWII era than I do for today's crowd.
I'm sure there are some good people involved with the SWP in Pittsburgh. I just can't stand what the organization has become and think people should be aware of SWP behavior on a national and international level.
it's not about Barnes
by Saleh
Monday, Sep. 08, 2003 at 9:27 PM
salehw@yahoo.com
teamsterturtle: it wasn't your comments that I was saying are unfounded, but the ones that said the local SWP is exploiting PAPV. Your comments and others' criticisms of the SWP outside-of-PAPV may all be correct (or may not, it's beside the point), but people still need to give specific evidence that's directly related to their specific charge. This is kind of like how George Bush can say Saddam Hussein killed people at Halabja because his weapons hit the place, but not that Saddam was responsible for the Anthrax attacks without direct evidence (not a perfect analogy, but it makes the point). This doesn't go against what you or others say against the SWP at other times and places, just about the current campaign because I've been there and haven't seen it. Even if u think the SWP is bad you still need something direct to say they're exploiting PAPV.
The citations weren't for anything you said, but rather for places from where claims about vanguardism and democratic centralism are derived. Somewhere down the chain there's someone who wrote "Marx/Lenin said" or "Marxism-Leninism is about" some unfounded definition of things like democratic centralism, without really showing where they're getting it from (which is important 'cause they're wrong from what I've read). they don't need page#s and edition names, but to prove where they're pulling it from. Very often I'll run across people saying some unfounded or superficially-derived stuff about Lenin or Marx, and then I'll carefully try to ask where they're getting that from because I see just the opposite, and they'll say "I don't care to read Marx/Lenin". If people are going to say someone said something without having read that person or talked to them, they better be able to back up what they say some other way that doesn't involve making leaps.
Saleh
ps teamsterturtle
by Saleh
Monday, Sep. 08, 2003 at 9:33 PM
salehw@yahoo.com
ps - what u wrote works for what u said but not for what the other person said, u might have good reason to be on guard about certain groups but that doesn't mean that someone else can make an unfounded specific charge, or (on the other end) that calling someone out on making unfounded specific charges on the SWP follows into Jack Barnes (non-sequitor).
The charges
by teamsterturtle
Monday, Sep. 08, 2003 at 9:42 PM
Point taken, Saleh. I do, however, think people need to be aware of what the SWP does in general, in case they are thinking about joining. The Pittsburgh branch is not autonomous in the least. In fact, I would not be surprised to learn that most Pittsburgh Swoops were told to move here from other areas.
For the record, I have no knowledge of the SWP attempting to take-over or otherwise command any activist group in Pittsburgh. I have not worked knowingly with any current SWP member or "fellow traveler" on campaigns.
hold on...
by teamsterturtle
Monday, Sep. 08, 2003 at 9:53 PM
Saleh,
I do think it is relevant to examine a group's relationship with the organization of which it is a part. Thus, my criticism of members of the SWP leadership is relevant to understanding the local and the context in which it operates (not how IT operates, necessarily). I realize that this is not the best way to have a debate on the subject (as one does not always know who comments are directed towards, can't give specific examples of individuals affected as it invades privacy, etc.), so I will stop here, barring egregious replies.
best places
by Saleh
Monday, Sep. 08, 2003 at 11:06 PM
salehw@yahoo.com
u could of course drop me a line (or anyone else could) if u want to discuss this further in a better forum (off indymedia).
why you fail once again...
by George K.
Tuesday, Sep. 09, 2003 at 8:27 AM
dodgerambler@yahoo.com
This type of arguement is why your organizations ultimately fail. No one is willing to stand up, assume a leadership position in some form, and lead. You are all milling around in some confused state, and you make your selves feel good by calling it "intellectual discourse". Your fractured national protest organizations are laughable at best, downright non-effective at worst. They are the most divisive to any kind of unitiy building you seek to perform.
Why don't you face the facts that this guy was drunk, retarded, out of control, and ignoring police orders. He ended up dead. Boo hoo.
Who was to blame? His upbringing. His peer group. That all came to bear on his final acts of defiance which got him killed.
End of story.
SWP or FB of I?
by old guy
Friday, Sep. 12, 2003 at 2:42 PM
By the 1980's the SWP had become so heavily infitrated by the FBI that you could never really be sure who you were talking too. Now I believe they''re just paperboys.
local SWP's "work"
by i remember
Saturday, Sep. 13, 2003 at 7:02 PM
as a point of reference, recall that the local Pittsburgh SWP boycotted the POG/TMC Anti-War Convergence in January. (did anyone actually notice? NO. that's right, they're irrelevant and will go away when they realize they can't subvert a cause in order to push their agenda.)
How's that for solidarity?
Those of us who have been out there organizing and have been paying attention have all of the "direct evidence" against these people we need.
americano
by swp?
Sunday, Sep. 14, 2003 at 8:09 PM
what is the swp??
SWP
by -
Sunday, Sep. 14, 2003 at 9:12 PM
SWP = Socialist Workers Party
![[masthead]](/images/masthead_140.png)