Free Screening "Independent Media in a Time of War" Sun 7/18

It has been heard from certain corners that a truly free independent press serves as the cornerstone of democracy -- meaningful, participatory democracy. A free press acts as the means by which individuals gain the necessary information, such as the acts and omissions of "leaders," so that they might make informed choices about their lives and their community.

The Indymedia network is one good example of this.

For just this reason, it is cause for concern when Indymedia is used as a promotional tool for groups and/or causes which are inherantly anti-democratic.

Refuse & Resist is a good example of this, unfortunately. The group exists as a front for the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP), a wholly-owned subsidiary of the parent corporation, if you will. And the RCP is fundamentally anti-democratic, with a self-appointed dictator-for-life, Omniscient Glorious Leader Chairman Bob Avakian (tm).

For power-hungry groups and individuals (those who aren't currently in power), indymedia may appear as another convenient vector by which to spread their deceptive virus. They cloak themselves in the appealing rhetoric of challenging the current power structure, pointing out its innumerable flaws and crimes. But hidden beneath that cloak, authoritarians steadfastly avoid pointing out that their "solution" would involve little more than changing the heads on the statues. And lest we prefer to conveniently deceive ourselves, let's not forget that were such a change to occur, Indymedia (like independent voices, generally) would be quickly silenced.

So please, reconsider whether you really want to align with the authoritarians. It's your choice. But if you feel that you must do it, please don't drag Indymedia along with you.

Democracy, Liberty, Justice for all.

viva zapatismo,

an imcista

"authoritarians steadfastly avoid pointing out that their "solution""

Whose solution? Front groups can take many forms and NION and some of the other recent RCP organized groups are not even Maoist. Red baiting is irritating and it sounds the same comming from anarchists as it does comming from conservatives.

The NLG had many early ties to the CPUSA and during the 50s that was a big deal with the right-wing, who demonized them in the same way anarchists today demonize Communist "front groups". The NLG was pretty independent compared to other CPUSA "front groups" and while there may have been a lot of CPUSA people in the early NLG trying to claim the NLG as a group was secretly promoting the rule of a Stalinistic dictator would put one in the camp of the the John Birch Society and the 50s redscare Mccarthyists.

Bayard Rustin was also a member of the CPUSA and was MLK's main advisor and organized the 1963 march on Washington. Does that make the Civil Rights movement a front group for Communists? Rustin had left the Party in 41 but still had ties and the right-wing at the time used similar rhetoric to that used by anarchists today to demonize the Civil Rights movement based off Communist support ad ties.

Judge groups and how they are organized and how they act. If the RCP really is using another group to recruit members and train them to be Maoist that would be one thing, but in the case of NION the only legitimate concerns I can see are ones of current organization (many decissions being made outside of meetings like most other groups).

The examples you use to try to make your point are incorrect and/or miss the point.

The NLG was not a creation of CPUSA. Although more than a few CP members became active in the NLG, that is very much NOT the same thing as the group having been concocted by CP. One might argue that it was an early example of left-authoritarians attempting to co-opt a group that seemed more palatable to the public than their own group(s), though such an argument would require a fair amount of evidence that is not currently on the table.

Your second example is even worse than the first.

That Bayard Rustin had been a CP member many years prior to working with MLK is so tenuous a connection to any discussion on "front groups" that it really lacks relevance within the current topic. But if you really want to bring up Bayard, let's not forget the part where it was the fact that he was (not so secretly) gay that probably caused him the most troubles within left groups; arguably moreso that his past ties with CP. On that note, I've speculated as to whether the RCP consciously chose Keith Harring's artwork for the Refuse&Resist logo as a specific means of deflecting attention from the anti-gay ideology espoused by Chairman Bob.

Anyway, the point was that these groups are not just "in solidarity with" with RCP, but are actually "created" by the RCP. The difference is significant.

OK, that's all for now.

Discuss amongst yourselves:
** The Bolsheviks had more in common with the Nazis than they did with the anarchists of Spain. **

>Front groups can take many forms and NION and
>some of the other recent RCP organized groups
>are not even Maoist.

But, I take from your statement, that these are "front" groups for the RCP. The fact that they are not explicitly Maoist is not very surprising. If they could be successful AND avowedly Maoist, then they wouldn't need to create the front group to begin with!!! ;-P

When Halliburton creates a subsidiary corporation that doesn't make its profits off of war, we don't say "don't look at the parent corporation, instead look at what the new corporation is doing." No, we look to the parent corporation and we know that the subsidiary is largely just a distraction and/or a means for avoiding greater liability. Corporations whose public image gets bad enough will often change their logo or even their name; they'll merge with a smaller corporation, but take the smaller one's name. It's just crass PR manipulation.

In that respect, I don't believe that groups like RCP behave any differently than those corporations.

Discuss amongst yourselves:
** The RCP power structure has more in common with multinational corporations than it does with Zapatista communities. **