War on the World

Detentions and Round-ups

Police State Restrictions

We are people of conscience who cannot stand silent as our government wages war without limits of time and space. We cannot stand silent as immigrants are rounded up and detained. We cannot stand silent in the face of new police state restrictions threatening the very right to dissent.

We refuse to allow President Bush to speak for all the American people. We will not give up our right to question. We will not hand over our consciences in return for a hollow promise of safety. Together as one, we say Not in Our Name.

We extend a hand to those around the world suffering from these policies. We acknowledge that we in this country have a special responsibility to resist what our own government is doing, from military interventions to supplying arms used to shoot down and terrorize people from Palestine to the Philippines. We encourage everyone to take up the globe as a symbol of solidarity with people worldwide.

























































































&















&





















&







































&















&





















&











&







&

I don't believe that the organization "Refuse & Resist" is a front group controlled by the Maoists of the "Revolutionary Communist Party" (RCP).

If you look closely at the list of signatories, you'll see that Jim Lafferty, the Executive Director of the National Lawyers Guild (Los Angeles branch) signed on. Lafferty is NOT a puppet of the RCP... he's no ones puppet. If anything he's an independent radical, and while the National Lawyers Guild has taken bold stands on issues, it would NEVER allow itself to be used by a group like the RCP.

It's also unfair to point the finger at the RCP, because there are many vanguardist groups that preach the "correct line." While such groups DO possess viewpoints worth examing, and DO have valuable insights on issues... as soon as they say "We're leading the revolution, follow us"... I'm inclined to walk in the opposite direction.

Someone in this thread seemed to defend the RCP when it came to Peru's "Shining Path" and now Nepal... saying they "were for people liberating themselves." Yes to that, but don't be fooled by the role Maoists have played in Peru and Nepal. They defined themselves as the "leaders" of the proletarian revolutionary war... and so, anyone who disagreed with them was the "class enemy." Sendero in Peru and now the Maoists in Nepal rule through brute force and terror. This is NOT a defense of the corrupt "royal family" in Nepal. I have no intention of living MY life by the words found in Mao's "Little Red Book" and I don't think Maoism is a "science" that can be used as a guidepost for social change in other parts of the world.

But hey... I'm not an Anarchist either! And I find as much vanguardism in Anarchist circles as I do anywhere else. What REALLY matters is what the people think. Groups can influence and show the way... but the people must lead.

DEMOCRACY is the one truly revolutionary force. Not the lame, stilted, and controlled "democracy" dished out by the corporate powers... but real PEOPLE'S DEMOCRACY. We should all be working for true democracy in form, theory, and practice.

Sorry to interrupt your debate, but does anyone want to talk about the content of the "Not in our Name" pledge and the importance of taking on this "rolling war" bullshit?

Again, I'd like to clarify; I don't find the RCP inherently bad, but coalition efforts are places that have to have a healthy middle ground, and RCP at times (not every time) has a problem with attempting to drag folks on the basis of being the vanguard party.

On the Refuse and Resist tip - the RCP does not run EVERY Refuse and Resist chapter; that would be unwieldly. But their program and the fights they pick are dictated by the RCP, or at least carry their strain of their Maoism, and I've seen an overlap between R&R and RCP Youth Brigade. That's nothing to be afraid of - front groups are necessary where blatantly revolutionary groups are frequently outlawed and/or shunned.

What bothers me are front groups that do not acknowledge that their reason for being and/or their work is dictated by their line, i.e. the ISO's frequent attempts to hide their Trotskyism behind campaigns for Ralph Nader, affirmative action, or labor solidarity while claiming such campaigns were always in the ISO's program. Bullshit, the ISO didn't support Nader until late 2000 - I know this because I tried to convince them to endorse in Summer 2000, and they gave me a line about Nader's petit bourgeoisness, etc; two months later, I go to a meeting of my campuses Greens, only o find that there's a dozen ISO cadre members who were running the darn thing.

There, the ISO is being sectarian while claiming to be ecumenical. That's just plain wrong. I'd hope that this group does not devolve into what I suspect - a vibrant group of that gets siezed at some key meeting.

I agree with the person who said lets look at the content of what the Not In Our Name statement is. It looks like something I can work with.

I am so bothered by people who claim to be worried about vanguards taking things over. They sound just like the government.

If we are going to stop this war we need the help and aid of millions. And if you sideline doubting thomas's are worried about taking it over - why not start your own Not In Our Name Group. I'm sure that communists, socialsitss and the like would't elminate working with you.

i agree with the last post this thread does not have to be a are you for rcp/ peoples war debate, there have been many in the past on indymedia and find it quite boring now. if there is a debate it should be how we can fight back against this this facist juggernaut and how " not in our name" can be part of this. lets discuss how we can improve whats already going on with not in our name without petty juvenile label slinging

The response I've gotten by the folks here is to "just read the pledge," and not to question who's involved in it or else I'll be called a "red-baiter" (nevermind that I consider myself a communist, find Mao to be helpful as a theorist, etc.)

I just find it ironic that this coalition is being set up to say that we're not going to sign on the dotted line to a U.S. imperialist war, but when I ask whether that means I sign onto "people's" wars in Nepal and Peru I'm told to shut up.

All I'd like to know is if the RCP is a coalition *member* or the coalition *sponsor*. Because there's a difference there.