FPM Breaks with League, IWPA

[Severian]

Originally posted by CompañeroDeLibertad@December 04, 2006 02:24 pm

I gotta say this is odd. The nature of the charges can hardly be unknown to the prosecution - so what valid "security" reason can there be to keep them secret from anyone else?* And providing "misinformation" to someone you're asking to support a defense campaign can never be good. If nothing else, it'll damage the credibility of the defense effort when the falsehood inevitably comes out.

I think you misunderstand. The misinformation was given while there were still active federal warrants out. It's usually not a good idea to give out a ton of personal info when the pigs are looking for you ... unless you want to be arrested.

That doesn't really address my points. Obviously the "pigs" already know what they've charged you with, and there seems to be confusion even about that - are you charged with "defrauding the government" or "defrauding people over the internet"? And: there can be good reasons for withholding some information, but not for generating misinformation, aka lying to people you're asking to support a defense campaign.

This all seems to have become so tangled that it's not worth trying to completely untangle it. I'm just saying its kinda fishy.

At the time, we weren't aware of all the relevant info. I'm not interested in giving out anyone's personal info, so I won't go to far into it.. but there's a difference between exposing the political history of some of the leaders of a group and exposing their personal information. You'll notice we didn't use names or say who belonged to what organization; but in light of the CL's actions, we felt it correct to address their history of this sort of bullshit.

I don't see how you could have known less than I did, considering that I had and have no inside information whatsoever.

Edit: HastaLaVictoria has also pointed out this strains credibility.

You weren't aware that the DWPA is a front group for the CL? It's intuitively obvious - and you haven't given any additional reason for thinking so that I didn't give at the time. I gotta conclude you knew this obvious fact all along, just found it more convenient to deny it anyway.

And of course I didn't give out anybody's personal info. Not even their names - except when they were already publicly known as leaders of the DWPA and longtime far-left activists. Weltman was its candidate for school board, for crying out loud, and Schraeder is the Chairman of the DWPA according to Miles - it was Miles who posted his real name, not me.

The common thread - here and on my earlier point - is using "security" as a reason to keep things secret from the public, from people you're trying to influence or recruit. A bogus excuse, because these things are already known to the government if they want to know them. These secrets are being kept for purposes of deception, not legitimate security reasons.

To illustrate this with an analogy: it's like the "secret" arming of the contras. Obviously the Sandinistas knew this was going on, it was only kept secret in order to keep the U.S. population in the dark. There was in fact no legitimate military security reason for it - even if one accepts the "national security" of the U.S. as something to defend - only deceptive political secrecy.

Or for a historical example, it's like Bakunin's secret brotherhood within the IMWA. This didn't exist to protect activists from persecution by the governments - but rather to deceive and manipulate the IMWA's rank and file for factional purposes. Thread where this bit of history was discussed.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Brilliant! I was looking to see if any groups in the Solomons were going to talk about this. All the best in the elections/

About what? RAMSI?

Since most of the 'left' isnt really put much (anything) out about ozi imperialism in the pacific, and when they do, it's not being followed up in the streets ya know?

Yeah.. either that or they're calling for "troops in"!

That doesn't really address my points. Obviously the "pigs" already know what they've charged you with, and there seems to be confusion even about that - are you charged with "defrauding the government" or "defrauding people over the internet"? And: there can be good reasons for withholding some information, but not for generating misinformation, aka lying to people you're asking to support a defense campaign.

This all seems to have become so tangled that it's not worth trying to completely untangle it. I'm just saying its kinda fishy.

Again, I think you misunderstand. We're talking about a period when active warrants were still out, and the police were still looking. This was before there was a defense campaign. It was in the early stages of communication between our groups, when we couldn't be sure if there were pigs in their group or not.

If you don't want to be found by federal agents who are looking for you, it's probably best not to go around telling everyone your name, exactly what you're wanted for, where the warrant is out of, etc.

I don't see how you could have known less than I did, considering that I had and have no inside information whatsoever.

Edit: HastaLaVictoria has also pointed out this strains credibility.

I don't see why you would think we knew so much more. We were presented with reps of the DWPA and CL - as seperate entities - during early discussions about forming the IWPA. At the time we didn't have the info that we have now.

You weren't aware that the DWPA is a front group for the CL? It's intuitively obvious - and you haven't given any additional reason for thinking so that I didn't give at the time.

Let's just say we got the "full scoop" since then.

And as "intuitively obvious" as it is, in the thread you mentioned earlier you admitted that it might not actually be a front after Miles said otherwise.

I gotta conclude you knew this obvious fact all along, just found it more convenient to deny it anyway.

You can conclude that; but you'd be wrong. Not the first time and more than likely not the last.

The common thread - here and on my earlier point - is using "security" as a reason to keep things secret from the public, from people you're trying to influence or recruit. A bogus excuse, because these things are already known to the government if they want to know them. These secrets are being kept for purposes of deception, not legitimate security reasons.

I'll repeat myself: If you don't want to be found by federal agents who are looking for you, it's probably best not to go around telling everyone your name, exactly what you're wanted for, where the warrant is out of, etc.

The only "secrets" that should be kept are for legitimate security reasons.. which we have and had. We don't keep secrets for the sake of keeping them. I agree that it's incorrect to keep things secret from working people while pretending to keep them secret from pigs (who already know them). That wasn't the case here, though you don't have to go far to find that sort of thing.

[KC]

On the issue at hand -- "the split" -- it's interesting that the issue of Cuba was brought up as one of the political differences that have played a role. And it's interesting not with regards this split, but with regards the internal political life of the Communist League.

That is, if it was able to play a prominent role in a divide between two separate organisations, what will happen when it becomes an issue inside the Communist League?

Different ideas about Cuba between the two organizations only influenced the separation on the FPM's side. Like Miles said earlier in this thread, many of these points were originally going into a document that was going to be distributed to the FPM in order to start open discussion on the political differences between the two organizations. We had no intention of breaking connections with the FPM at the time, especially over something like this. Of course, we could see how it influenced the separation on the FPM's side when their Oregon (?) branch released a statement basically saying that the FPM should break all ties with us because we're "eurocentrist" "whites" for not recognizing Cuba as a socialist state (of course what they didn't realize is that we don't hold an official position on Cuba and that some of our members actually agree with them, but who cares about facts?).

The League itself, of course, has no formal position on this issue ... or many other historical issues. Which means that League members can (and do?) hold all kinds of different views on the subject. Miles and, it seems, other leading members of the League, however, hold a variation of the left-communist view on the subject.

So, as the League develops and presents more and more of its formal positions on certain subjects to us; how will it cope with the glaring contradictions between the views of leading members and others on said subjects?

We have dealt with the issue of Cuba in the past in the League, and continue to hold ongoing discussions on that and other events in history and debate between different perspectives that different members hold. However, to me it seems that this has actually brought us closer together as an organization instead of dividing us.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by Zampanò@December 05, 2006 10:11 pm
(of course what they didn't realize is that we don't hold an official position on Cuba and that some of our members actually agree with them, but who cares about facts?).

I don't recall too many members believing Cuba to be a socialist-state, or any as of today.

All I can recall is that some of us may have felt possitive about whats going on in Cuba, but had our doubts, and were critical, though no one really took a pro-Cuba stance.

[KC]

I don't recall too many members believing Cuba to be a socialist-state, or any as of today.

All I can recall is that some of us may have felt possitive about whats going on in Cuba, but had our doubts, and were critical, though no one really took a pro-Cuba stance.

I remember debating with someone in the League about it, but I don't remember who it was.

[Severian]

Originally posted by CompañeroDeLibertad@December 05, 2006 03:42 pm
And as "intuitively obvious" as it is, in the thread you mentioned earlier you admitted that it might not actually be a front after Miles said otherwise.

No, I said let's suppose it isn't for the sake of argument. I said that again in this thread.

[which doctor]

Originally posted by Leo Uilleann@December 02, 2006 12:29 am
I was looking at the League website and I saw this picture;



Which of course made me feel warm and fuzzy inside, but it was also interesting because this is the ICC logo. Anyway...

It's also, surprisingly, a logo for Crimethinc.

[metalero]

2007 chit chat awards.

stuff up of the year: Communist league-FPM internet split

[Janus]

After reading the FPM counterstatement, I can't believe that I actually thought that the CL statement was a bit too harsh.

Anyways, this whole episode is really being overdramatized and is basically just a lot of petty arguements combined with political mudslinging. This kind of publicity ain't helping either group.

[peaccenicked]

What I cannot believe is that Revleft has become reduced to an analysis of a squabble between two organisations pulled by the heat of battle in opposing directions. There is heavy pressure on the Mexican people which is accentuated by the attempted police capture of Oxaca http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews....XICO-OAXACA.xml


The revolution is not really learned by leaders. Leaders can either join the people or get out of the road.
Everytime we have won, our foriegn policy has been to spread it elswhere.

[AmerGuerilla]

Anyways, this whole episode is really being overdramatized and is basically just a lot of petty arguements combined with political mudslinging. This kind of publicity ain't helping either group.

Well I see on the CL site that they have an article up on it. hmm none on the FPM site maybe thats just because the new Free Press hasnt come out or just because this wont impact everyday FPM activism. dont think this will effect the support of any real FPM supporters around the world, maybe a couple people on this forum but thats it.