Dear rn, Jan has posted several promotional messages recently for events sponsored by PGA (Peoples Global Action). She included this proviso: While Richard and others, including myself, have had some reservations about the way the PGA reported on demonstrations Richard participated in while he was in Geneva last year, another RN list correspondent, Andreas Rockstein, in Germany, has kept up ties with the PGA and assures us that this effort is a worthwhile one. I want to first revisit this PGA issue, and to re-emphasize that I do not think PGA is worthy of our support. After that, I want to discuss my PGA attitude in terms of movement divisiveness. One of the principles I've most strongly promoted (in fact today's cj posting is on this topic) is that we need more movement collaboration and solidarity, and less competition and divisiveness among different movements. Is my PGA attitude in contradiction to this unity-principle? I think not, but your comments on this will be welcome. First, about PGA... My knowledge of PGA is not limited to what I experienced in Geneva (last May), and my objections go far beyond PGA's reportage of those events. I'm on several PGA mailing lists, including Andreas' own posting list, and I've been tracking PGA's efforts and pronouncements. I've written several critiques, many of which you've seen on this list, and most of which have been copied to the PGA address and to Andreas personally. No one from PGA, nor Andreas, has made any attempt to respond my comments or to defend PGA in light of my criticisms. I would welcome any such response, and in light of PGA's evident competence at organization, I'd like nothing better than to be convinced they're "good guys"... but so far the evidence, as I've seen it, continues to be otherwise. Here's a copy of the most recent message I sent to Andreas (which was not answered)... -------------------------------------------------- Date: 3 March 199 To: Andreas Rockstein <•••@••.•••> From: •••@••.••• Subject: Re: PGA Cc: Jan Slakov <•••@••.•••> 2/3/99, Andreas wrote to Jan (who forwarded to me): I think you mustn't have any scrupulosity if face of PGA. We are'nt more or less than a network of grassroot movements, but not an organization in conventionally sense. Even this is the reason for police repression. "Grassroots-globalization" is a new apparition, which they never have seen bevore. Their exaggerated reaction is to be seen as "globaphobia" - they are afraid about the fact, hat peoples all over the world began to resist from "grassroots-level" - that they are building networks among themselves and coalitions with NGO's and that they are beginning to resist not only several treaties or agreements but capitalism generally. They are afraid that their system might begin to stagger. They couldn't realize, that there don't exist any hierarchical structure - they are searching furthermore "manipulators" - believing that we are a terroristic association - let them search - so they will be occupied with absurdnesses Dear Andreas, I'm sorry Andreas, but I cannot share you enthusiasm for PGA. I have seen them in operation personally in Geneva last May, and I have read their subsequent reports on those events. I met with Sergio Hernandez for several hours, and was at first quite impressed with him. But as I saw how their "Manifestation" unfolded, with its unproductive violence, and when I later read the slanted and deceptive reports that PGA put out about the events, I changed my mind. I also met with Ronnie Dugger, who was present when the manifesto was being hammered out, and he said Sergio was manipulative about the manifesto language... Ronnie said he'd never have anything to do with Sergio again. PGA has accurately identified who the enemy is, and it has much good language in its manifesto. But by its actions PGA discredits those who oppose globalization, and betrays its own supporters. If I were a globalist executive, I'd be contributing to PGA's coffers -- such an enemy is a friend in disguise. imho, rkm -------------------------------------------------- None of PGA's messages, and I don't just mean the ones immediately following the Geneva events, have ever acknowledged the violence that accompanies PGA's demonstrations. They always complain about police actions, and always pretend those actions are completely unprovoked. This is devious propaganda, both inapproriate and counter-productive in any democratic movement. Furthermore, violent confrontation, in the context of current Western societies -- where a majority are not yet awakened to the justice of the movement -- only serves to discredit the movement and inhibit others from joining it. It is a self-limiting strategy. If there were a larger following, and if the movement was being suppressed, that would be a different kettle of fish. It is also deceptive to pretend that "there don't exist any hierarchical structure[s]" and that there are no "manipulators". The energy of the rank-and-file certainly arises from the grass roots, as well it should in the face of globalization, but that doesn't mean that energy isn't being manipulated by the top PGA organizers. Sergio is in fact a very skilled manipulator, as I saw in the organizing sessions he ran in Geneva. A phalanx of his PGA followers in Geneva were wearing balaklavas over their faces and were pushing shopping carts full of paving stones which they used to smash windows in shops and automobiles and to throw at police. I heard comments from Genevans the next day expressing such sentiments as "They pretend to be against corporate power, but they smash the windows of small shops". This hardly the way to promote awareness of dangers of corporate power or globalist centralizaiton. Sergio is not stupid, and I find it hard to believe the consequences of his actions are inadverdent. Ronnie Dugger raised the question, when I met with him in Boston last July, about where Sergio gets his funding. That's a question that I think deserves an answer. One cannot rule out the possibility that Sergio's mission is in fact to betray the movement and prevent it from becoming effective. --- How do these comments fit in with my philosphy of movement solidarity and collaboration? What I think is necessary is for all of us to look beyond our own causes, and to consider the movement as a whole. By "movement" I refer to the various efforts to promote a more sensible, human-centered world, and to overcome our current domination by "market forces", centralized corporate power, and poltical parties that have sold out to those forces. But considering the movement-as-a-whole does not imply carte-blanche support of every intiative that claims to be counter-establishement. Quite the contrary. One can think of the overall movement as being a commmunity of smaller movements. Looking beyond our special causes to the larger community is only the first step. The next step is for communication to be fostered among community members (the different smaller movements). In that communication process, which is what this list is about, the goal is to become more effective as a community, to promote synergy, to share knowledge about what works and what doesn't. Mutual criticism, mutual support, and mutual learning, are all part of the process. Identification of counter-productive community members is also part of the process, as is alertness to _inevitable co-option attempts by the forces of reaction. PGA is especially dangerous _because of their brilliant manifesto and their superb orgnaizational skills. They talk the good talk, and manage to channel the energy of thousands onto their path. But to the larger millions in the West, PGA's actions proclaim that those who oppose globalization are hooligans. regards, rkm ======================================================================== an activist discussion forum - •••@••.••• To subscribe, send any message to •••@••.••• A public service of Citizens for a Democratic Renaissance (mailto:•••@••.••• http://cyberjournal.org) Help create the Movement for a Democratic Rensaissance To review renaissance-network archives, send any message to: •••@••.••• To subscribe to the the cj list, which is a larger list and a more general political discussion, send any message to: •••@••.••• A community will evolve only when the people control their means of communication. -- Frantz Fanon Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world, indeed it's the only thing that ever has. - Margaret Mead