Catholic clergy trying to restrain may 1st demos

[Comrade-Z]

It seems that churches and unions across the country are scrambling to "rein-in" and de-radicalize the pro-immigration movement.

Yet one more piece of evidence in favor of having leaderless self-organization of revolutionary movements. Movements that rely on leaders are at a horrible risk of being co-opted, reined-in, and/or broken through the assassination of a single key figure.

This is also, of course, one more notch against religion.

Divisions emerge over May 1 immigration work and school boycott (http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/breaking_news/14380905.htm)


Boycott backers want to highlight the economic toll if constructions sites and restaurants are undermanned, crops untended and hotels uncleaned. They also hope empty classrooms will demonstrate that immigration reform is a major issue for future voters.

Doubters fear alienating federal lawmakers who are still wavering over how to reshape U.S. immigration policy.

Among them are figures from unions and religious and Hispanic groups who have mustered nationwide marches supporting a chance at U.S. citizenship for an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants. These leaders support a protest May 1 - but after school is out and businesses are closed.


Sporadic but mostly mild criticism of the boycott began soon after organizers announced it in early March. But skepticism has been intensifying and Los Angeles Cardinal Roger Mahony, an outspoken supporter of illegal immigrants, discouraged it during Easter Mass.

"Go to work. Go to school," said Mahony. "And then join thousands of us at a major rally afterward."

Boycott effort might be unstoppable (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_4639432,00.html)


Some prominent pro-immigrant leaders and groups, including the Archdiocese of Denver, are urging immigrants to go to work and school on May 1.

They are offering alternative events, such as marches and educational forums on how to treat the country's estimated 11 million to 12 million undocumented immigrants.


Coalition members have said the current pro-immigrant frenzy has been so spontaneous that they cannot control what people do, even if they tried.

"It's not really being organized by the organizers," said Jamila Spencer of the Colorado Catholic Conference.


Union leaders say they cannot endorse the work boycott because of contractual obligations.

SEIU Local 105, which represents janitors and health care employees, is working with employers to allow members to participate in the May 1 events, said spokeswoman Michelle Dally.

Members met last week and decided that "the strongest message could be delivered through the march and rally and not through the boycott," she said.

And on a slightly off-topic, but nonetheless humorous note, Miami Cuban exiles are in a quandry as to whether to participate in the May 1st demonstrations considering that they fall on International Workers' Day. :lol:

May 1 plans strike nerve with some exiles (http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/14392592.htm)

[redstar2000]

Excellent post! :)

Now...let's see those who want to "tolerate religion" find some excuses for this one! :angry:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[chaval]

im confused, the pro immigration churches are trying to encourage poeple not to take part in the protest for may 1st. wahts the protest about anyawys? whats the big deal?

[bezdomni]

I thought the catholic churches supported the immigrants?

I guess I was wrong.

[Comrade-Z]

I thought the catholic churches supported the immigrants?

Well, they do...up to a certain point, insofar as supporting the immigrants enhances the power of the churches.

Church leaders are not immune to perceived self-interest. Though they might deny it, it is what they (and all others) operate from.

The Church must consider a number of factors (same thing goes for the unions):
*They must maintain their favor with the ruling class and thus maintain their semi-priviledged status. That means not letting their constituents get too much "out of line" or "too radical."
*They must show themselves to be useful, worthwhile entities to their rank-and-file constituents, which means getting behind their efforts, at least nominally.
*They must somehow translate the rank-and-file activism into increased power for their organizations.

It's a tough dance that they have to weave. :lol:

[Severian]

Originally posted by Comrade-[email protected] 21 2006, 03:20 PM
Yet one more piece of evidence in favor of having leaderless self-organization of revolutionary movements. Movements that rely on leaders are at a horrible risk of being co-opted, reined-in, and/or broken through the assassination of a single key figure.
But of course all movements, even all human groups, have leaders. Even in an informal group of 5 people, there is one or more who...takes the lead.

By trying not to have leaders, some groups manage only to have unofficial, unelected, unaccountable leaders.

E.g. none of the leaders quoted in those articles were elected by the millions who turned out for these rallies....they don't reflect those millions and their attitudes, or only partially and in a distorted way. They are misleaders.

Rather than utopian dreams of a leaderless movement, what's needed is work for elected, accountable, close to the ranks, revolutionary leaders.

****

And it's an inaccurate sweeping generalization to say that "unions" are scrambling to rein people in from taking off work for these rallies. The union is the ranks as well as the bureaucracy.....

and in some cases even the staff has in fact been encouraging people to take off work. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/07/AR2006040701943.html)

And in others, when workers have been fired for taking off work to attend the protests - they've been able to fight and get their jobs back - through and with the support of the union. (http://www.themilitant.com/2006/7017/index.shtml)