[Marxism] Peter Camejo: A Call to Action for 2006

["Walter Lippmann" <walterlx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

(As always, Peter Camejo has intelligent things
to say about nearly any topic which hhe chooses
to address. A lot of this is about certain very
internal matters for the Green Party, but what
he says would apply to any organization which
seeks basic change in the structure of society.

(Peter's conclusion begins on this positive note:
"It is my opinion that the massive radicalization
we see in Latin America may be the beginning of
one of those waves that seem to come about every
thirty years attempting to increase democracy and
freedom in the world.") I say: "Teach on that!")
=================================================

From: Rachel Odes [mailto:rodes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, July 08, 2005 2:00 PM
To: Votecamejo@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: CAMEJO LIST: A Call to Action for 2006

A CALL TO ACTION FOR 2006

And a report on the recent Green Party Plenary

Peter Miguel Camejo
July 7, 2005

Popular opinion is starting to shift away from supporting the occupation
of Iraq nationally and in California from support of Arnold
Schwarzenegger. A great opportunity for the Green Party as the voice for
peace in the world, and for a fair tax in California to balance our
budget and protect education and our social services is now opening up.

After backing every request by Bush for an illegal war and the
unconstitutional USA PATRIOT Act, the Democrats now want to appear as
though they are in opposition while they continue to support the
occupation. It is of the utmost importance that we tell the American
people the truth about how corporate America controls the two major
parties, and is allowing our educational system to decline while they
fight for control of the world's oil with our tax dollars and the blood
of our youth.

Resistance to military recruitment is starting to gain ground,
especially on campuses across the country. Opposition to the USA PATRIOT
Act is now wide spread. Our message will fall on receptive ears if we
organize a clear and effective message and campaign.

We are now starting to get organized for the 2006 statewide campaign. If
you are interested in participating please email us at
rachelodes@xxxxxxxxx so we can contact you. If you email us we will
start sending you reports as we begin to prepare the strategy and
organizational framework for what I believe can be the most exciting
campaign we have ever organized. This will happen by linking our efforts
to the living movements and struggles that are now underway.  There will
be a series of meetings and reports that many of you may want to know
about and receive so please email us.

Below is a report on a critical problem developing in the California
Green Party and steps that are being taken to assure our party maintains
its grassroots democracy and its independence.

THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY

On May 21 and 22 delegates from counties throughout California gathered
for a Green Party plenary just outside of Los Angeles. There was tension
in the air. Many delegates knew that a new major problem was brewing
within the party.

In spite of apprehension regarding some California-specific issues, many
delegates came to the plenum looking forward to voting on the proposals
brought by a committee set up by the Coordinating Committee of the state
party for internal democracy and independence from the Democrats. These
proposals, three in all, are known as the GDI proposals for the current
in the Green Party backing them. GDI stands for Greens for Democracy and
Independence.

THE THREE GDI PROPOSALS

The three proposals can be summarized simply as proposing to the
national party that we end the present electoral college set-up and base
our structure on one Green one vote, meaning that delegates for national
conventions must be representative of how the membership voted in their
state primary or convention. Lastly we proposed that the Green Party as
an institution is independent and does not endorse, offer its ballot
line, or raise funds for Democrats or Republicans. The details of these
proposals are available at the GDI web site:
http://www.Greens4democracy.net.

After the GDI proposal presenters finished making their case before the
gathered delegates, those who had concerns were given the floor. A wave
of opposition arose from many of the delegates, some speaking in anger.
Part of the reason for this problem is the peculiar method used for
handling proposals in the Green Party. Instead of having presentations
both for and against a proposal, and then having discussion making sure
both points of view are heard, and then allowing the presenters both for
and against a short summary, the Green Party allows only those who are
in favor of a proposal to make a presentation and then lines up those
opposed to present their "concerns" with very limited time. This leads
to many feeling great frustration, and instead of clarity the discussion
often provokes confusion and anger.

(This is one of many problems that need to be worked on-others include
limiting or ending the veto power of a small minority over the majority.
During the plenary Cat Woods of Marin and Forrest Hill of Alameda opened
a discussion on how some of these issues could be improved.)

THE GOOD: GDI PROPOSALS SWEEP THE PLENARY

Some GDI supporters began to fear we were going to lose the vote as
vocal opponents to the GDI proposals repeatedly took the floor. But once
the roll call vote started on Sunday morning and each delegate rose to
vote, the calls of "YES" poured across the floor overwhelming the
opponents of the GDI proposals. The three proposals received support
from 78%, 70% and 62% of the delegates present. In my opinion Greens
will look back with pride at this moment not just for what we endorsed,
but also on how the GDI current handled itself as an open current with
genuine grassroots involvement throughout the country. California was
the fourth state to adopt these proposals. These four states, New York
with 44,000 registered Greens and California with about 160,000
registered Greens, represent possibly more than a majority of Greens in
the national party. Of course there is support to some degree in every
state. In some states like Vermont, Florida and Utah* an overwhelming
majority voted to support GDI proposals. Only Wisconsin has voted (sort
of) against the GDI proposals as of the writing of this article.

When the vote ended, it was clear that in California, opposition to the
GDI current exists in any strength only in four counties of the
seventeen present at the plenary. The county delivering the most votes
against GDI was Los Angeles.

To me the high point of the plenary was the vote showing that the
overwhelming sentiment in California is for internal democracy and
political independence.

That was the GOOD.

THE BAD: A CALL FOR FUSION WITH DEMOCRATS

The low for this plenary was hit when Mike Feinstein, a past Green Party
mayor of Santa Monica, took the floor calling for putting Democrats on
the Green Party ballot line in partisan races. Let me repeat that.
Feinstein wants partisan candidates of a pro-war, pro- corporate,
corrupt party to be given an extra ballot line using the Green Party.
That was the bad. (How this is done is complicated. There is a loophole
in the law where a person not in the Green Party, by being a write-in
candidate in the Green primary, can also appear as the candidate of the
Greens while being the candidate of the Democrats.)

Feinstein's call for fusion with Democrats is the same strategy that has
destroyed many third parties, such as the Free Soil Party, the Greenback
Labor Party, the Populist Party, and more recently the fusion-focused
New Party. The Democratic Party opposes all ten key values of the Green
Party. It is pro-war, helping to destroy our planet, pro-corporate,
corrupt and anti-labor. If Feinstein's views prevail the Greens will
place under the Green Party ballot line the names of registered
Democrats. Greens, independents and even Democrats fed up with their
party who would seek to vote for a Green would instead be voting for a
Democrat.

As some Los Angeles delegates voted NO on the GDI proposals they yelled
out "give cross-voting a chance". The term "cross-voting" is a new term
being used by the supporters of fusion. To make it easy for the
Democrats to use the Green ballot line, Feinstein is proposing changing
our rules. He announced that at least two Democrats are waiting to use
the Green ballot line.

This was the BAD.

THE UGLY: PLENUM PARALYZED, LACK OF ACCOUTABILITY

Before the plenary had the opportunity to even hear or discuss the GDI
proposals, it was paralyzed for the first four hours because no agenda
could be passed. The reason was that the leadership of the Party has
been trying for some time to get Mike Feinstein (yes, the same person
who favors fusion) to tell the party how he has spent party money that
he had deposited in a private account controlled by him and has refused
to let the party see what has happened to the funds donated to the Green
Party but taken by Feinstein.

WHERE DID THE MONEY GO?

The amount is unknown, although it is estimated to be in the tens of
thousands of dollars. For instance, when Ralph Nader came to Los Angeles
in 2001 and held a fundraiser for the Green Party of California, none of
the checks ever reached the state party. It appears Feinstein took the
money and deposited the money in his private account. The Green Party
has the obligation to file with the State how it spends its
contributions. Feinstein has refused to provide the information to the
Party so it can make its filings.

Similarly, a ten thousand dollar donation to the Los Angeles County
Green Party from an individual was deposited by Feinstein and spent
without any official body of the party making any decisions as to how it
would be spent. The donor has since left the Green Party in disgust. And
more recently after the failure of the plenary to agree to insist that
all funds must be reported, highly respected Green Party member Kevin
McKeown, a city council member in Santa Monica, resigned in disgust from
the Green Party and registered decline to state until the Green Party
takes action and reports its funding as required by law.

The leadership of the Green Party tried to bring to the plenary a
request for support in its effort to report those funds and to find out
how they were spent. Feinstein has refused to make that information
available. In the Green Party a minority, sometimes as small as 20%, is
allowed to block the decisions of the majority such as the plenary
agenda.

The plenary was never allowed to hear a debate on this issue or indicate
how it collectively felt the leadership should handle the matter. To
this day the Green Party does not know what Feinstein did with the Green
Party funds.

LOS ANGELES DISENFRANCHISEMENT

The plenary resumed some four hours later when the majority acceded to
the minority demand so the rest of the agenda could proceed. However,
there was another very factional point of contention. A large number of
Greens from Los Angeles were claiming that they in effect had been
disenfranchised by maneuvers of a minority in Los Angeles led by, you
guessed it, Mike Feinstein. They demanded the plenary discuss this point
and not seat the Los Angeles delegation.

The majority of the state leadership had placed the issue of the Los
Angeles delegation on the agenda because a rather strange development is
under way in Los Angeles. Each of the Green Party counties has a county
council elected during primary elections. If a candidate has no
opposition they are automatically elected. It is often the case that
elections are not contested. In some cases, no one runs at all for the
seat and it is left vacant. This is common throughout the State. But
there is something ominous in Los Angeles: there are supposed to be 17
County Council members but some seats remain unfilled. Many Greens
believe, and the evidence now seems overwhelming, that an effort by a
small group to get control of Los Angeles County has been at work. With
only 10 of the 17 seats filled, a clique of 7 members, led by, well you
know who, has taken control.

Unlike other counties, when Green members come to their county wide
meeting in LA they are told they have no right to vote-only the ten
County Council members have a vote on electing delegates and CC reps,
leaving the inner clique in total control.

Seven people are now controlling a County of 28,000 Greens. These seven
can send 3 representatives to our 19 member State Coordinating committee
and they were able to have a delegation sent to the plenum heavily
weighted behind the views of a small anti-GDI, pro-fusion minority as
though they were the majority in Los Angeles. Los Angeles receives 21%
of our General State Assembly delegation.

It is felt by most Greens that this violates our bylaws calling for
grassroots democracy. In my opinion, this is a willful act by a minority
seeking control against the majority. There is an obvious fix to this
situation. The majority of Greens who favor democracy and equal rights
for all members need to organize a slate for the next county election
and remove the control of this minority from Los Angeles County so that
delegates to our state Coordinating Committee and to our plenary can
accurately reflect the Green Party membership. I offer the Los Angeles
Greens my support and I believe so will the overwhelming majority of
Greens in this effort.

Among the Greens present protesting the disenfranchisement of Greens and
who was unable to be a delegate under the Feinstein controlled County
Council was Donna Jo Warren, who ran in 2002 for Lieutenant Governor and
has been the leading African-American spokesperson for the Green Party.

Often when Greens would try to speak at the plenary on this issue
regarding Los Angeles or the funding problem they would be interrupted
with shouts coming from the Los Angeles delegates supporting Feinstein.
This kind of behavior is unusual in the Green Party.

Mike Feinstein has been working with a tight group of supporters to try
to replace the state-wide leadership with people who are in agreement
with him. They have been working on this for what appears to be well
over two years with some success. One factor that makes this possible is
the openness and innocence in the way the Green Party functions tending
to elect anyone willing to volunteer to take on responsibility.

NO PLATFORM

Those backing Feinstein have never revealed what they stand for. That
is, they have no declared platform. They have worked hard badmouthing
leaders they want removed, but they do not do it openly. There never is
an open statement for all Greens to read. If the attacks were open, then
those who disagreed could respond. Their approach is what is
traditionally called an anti-leadership, unprincipled grouping.
Unprincipled because it has no stated platform of what it is trying to
achieve except to take over the party for their group.

SECRET FACTION

As the Feinstein clique's efforts increased, many Greens began to take
notice this was happening. No one could be sure exactly who was in their
group. They had or have secret lists where if they felt they could trust
you to work with them for their objectives they would allow you in. One
of these was called "BUZZ 05". Rather than refer to this grouping as
Feinsteinites I prefer the name BUZZ because there is more than one
person responsible for this undemocratic methodology that is quite
destructive for the Party. In fact they themselves refer to one another
as "Buzzers". In there secret communications they openly talk of trying
to get "their" people on to certain committees, etc. All this is done
completely behind the back of the Party. In fact some of the Buzzers
have spoken to me privately over the last year attacking other leaders
in the party but never telling me how they were organizing to try to
take over the party.

The BUZZ clique, as usually happens in this kind of situation, accused
those who disagreed with them of doing exactly what they were doing.
They kept referring to the leadership of people like Peggy Lewis, Sharon
Peterson, Jo Chamberlain, Mike Wyman, Michael Borenstein, all elected,
long-time, hard-working Coordinating Committee members, of being a
clique. All of the Greens under attack are strong supporters of internal
democracy and have worked for years thanklessly, trying to build our
party.

It is true that many of the Buzzers are also Greens who have made many
valuable contributions having worked hard to build the party for years.
That is part of the tragedy of these events.

Our goal should not be to imitate them and exclude them from
participation at all levels. They should be welcomed. But they must make
their views known openly and Greens should vote for or against their
policies and leadership candidates in an open democratic manner. It is
my belief they will have very little support in the ranks of our Party
for their methods and policies.

The BUZZ current has always had members on the State Coordinating
Committee (CC) and has been free to offer any suggestions, campaigns,
platform ideas or their views on any matter to be placed before the
Party. What is their platform? On occasion we have had a glimpse of what
Mike Feinstein, for instance, stands for. I can relate one experience
because it involves me directly.

In 2002 when I announced my candidacy for governor, Mike Feinstein urged
the Coordinating Committee to do what it could to stop me from running.
He emailed the state leadership warning of the imminent danger if I was
allowed to run for governor. Fortunately the co-chairs, Peggy Lewis and
Michael Borenstein, did not follow Feinstein's advice. If the BUZZ had
been in control of the CC I probably would not have been able to run for
governor. Our Green Party vote would not have risen from 1 to 8% in the
Latino community, our relations with Centro Azteca, the mass march of
Latinos with signs "Vote Green" would never have happened and prominent
sympathetic articles would never have been printed.

Worst yet if the 2002 campaign had not happened as Feinstein advocated,
the 2003 recall opportunity and my being in six televised
debates-including the most watched ever internationally televised debate
that won mass sympathy from millions for the Green Party-would never
have occurred.

During the campaign of 2002, I suffered from the kind of rumor mongering
that is now so prevalent. Rumors began to appear that I was
discriminating against Donna Jo Warren in how we used our campaign
funds. At a conference call of the 2002 campaign committee, two
individual Greens, one from LA and one from San Francisco began
repeating this rumor by asking for assurance that Donna Jo Warren was
being treated fairly. I feel both of these Greens were victims of the
rumor. When Jack Uhrich, the national fund raising coordinator, came to
a campaign and national fund raiser with Ralph Nader in Los Angeles he
was also under the influence of this rumor and began insisting on a say
in how the funds allocated to the California 2002 campaign would be
dispersed.

These charges were utterly untrue across the board. There probably have
never been two candidates that worked better together and which have
more mutual respect for each other than Donna and I.  It was a great
pleasure to campaign throughout California as a Latino and African
American, man and woman, together advocating building the Green Party. I
know it was effective and it was one of the best elements of our
campaign. That some one would try to create a rift or promote
disparaging remarks of this kind is really a sad commentary.

MEANING OF CLIQUES

The word clique sounds negative, but it is the appropriate term for this
kind of grouping. An anti-leadership grouping without a platform that
works through gossip with secret meetings is a clique. A political
current is something else entirely. When Greens come together to promote
a platform, like the GDI grouping that, it is a political current or
tendency. Greens all know exactly the GDI current's platform, what they
are promoting, who they are, and they can vote for or against. The GDI
current had a written platform. Its ideas are available on a web site
(http://www.greens4democracy.net). Many Greens have written commentary
and proposals. The whole promotion of the current is open and available
to every member of the Party that wishes to learn what it stands for.
This is how Greens that wish to improve the Green Party should act.

But a grouping that moves in the shadows, promotes their views through
gossip, refuses to write down where it stands and what it is trying to
achieve, also obscures its political views in order to gain support even
from people who do not agree with it on critical issues like fusion, is
an unprincipled clique.

When cliques appear, and they do in all major political formations at
one time or other to one degree or other, it is generally a negative
development and weakens the organization. Cliques almost always end up
creating deep personal conflicts and inevitably provoke the formation of
a counter grouping. That is often inevitable and, in fact, sometimes
necessary. But Greens who oppose the BUZZ's takeover campaign have not
organized to oppose what is happening in the California Green Party. It
is becoming clear that Greens who want respect for all members, internal
democracy, accountability in matters of money and who wish to protect
our independence from the Democrats, need to get organized. But a
response to the BUZZ must be organized openly, with its platform and
objectives in writing and available for all to see.

Many Greens react negatively to any conflict with in the party. Many
walk away and stop going to meetings. In some ways they are right.
In-fighting always is misplaced energy that could be used to fight the
real problems of our society. But in-fighting is inevitable for many
reasons. The question is HOW to handle internal differences and the
appearance of cliques. The KEY is openness. Say it openly so anyone can
hear, see it, and others can respond. Try to move away from the
organizational and personal issues and to the underlying political
differences. Cliques that start out as just an anti-leadership grouping
more often than not over time turn out to have a political agenda. We
are seeing this now as the BUZZ begins to talk about fusion with the
Democrats.

Working to develop a culture in the Green Party against cliques and how
to be open about differences is an important part of building the
organization. People who are open about their views and argue based on
politics can still have good personal relations with those who disagree
with them. The method being used by the BUZZ leads to irreparable breaks
between people that can last a lifetime.

 A MESSAGE TO PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRATS

There are many Democrats who are opposed to the invasion of Iraq and its
occupation. Probably the majority of Democrats are anti-war. Many
Democrats oppose the USA PATRIOT Act and defend the Bill of Rights,
favor choice for women, oppose corruption, are pro-labor and defend our
planet from corporate destruction. We Greens respect such people and
want to work with them. We want to work with them because we have many
points of agreement and on those specific points there is the basis for
joint activity.

But we Greens differ with progressive Democrats' decision to join a
pro-war, corrupt, pro-PATRIOT Act, pro-corporate party that is helping
to destroy our planet. That is their contradiction. We ask progressive
Democrats to focus on opposing their own party leadership and party
platform and the Republicans, and not to attack the Greens. We ask them
to respect the Green Party as we respect you as people with many similar
views. The one area we cannot work with you on is helping to build a
party that opposes everything we are for.

If you attempt to use the Green Party to promote your election as a
partisan Democrat, what you will find is massive opposition from the
Green Party membership. The pro-fusion current is a very small minority
in the Green Party. But you will not only alienate the Greens, you will
alienate progressive Democrats and independents for attempting to abuse
the fledgling Green Party that functions as a grassroots, purely
volunteer organization that will not accept funds from corporations.
Progressives registered as Greens, Democrats or Decline to State
(independents) will turn against you if you try to use our ballot line.

If you have been approached by Michael Feinstein or any other pro-fusion
Green who suggests that you run on our ballot line, you should be aware
that at our recent plenary the overwhelming majority voted against his
views on this issue. Showing mutual respect and working together on
specific issues is how a positive political relationship can exist
between us, not trying to work with a minority in the Green Party to use
our ballot line.

SAVING THE GREEN PARTY

The increased strength in the Coordinating Committee by the BUZZ Greens
is now a fact. They are working hard, attacking one member at a time of
those representatives that are not with them.

It is becoming obvious to many Greens that those of us who oppose this
kind of attempted takeover must organize and do so openly. Our goal
should not be to drive those associated with this campaign out of the
Green Party, but to pressure them to state what their platform is, to
state what they believe and let the membership decide who and what they
support. The answer is the June of 2006 primary elections. At that time
all Green Party County Councils will be re-elected throughout
California.

In counties like Los Angeles, where the majority of Greens have been
disenfranchised, they must organize, present a slate, campaign and win
back control of their county. This must be done openly and on a clear
platform of Accountability, Democracy, Empowerment of the membership and
Political Independence-these issues appear to me to be the dividing
points with the BUZZ clique. We need to get to work now to make sure
that the will of the Green Party membership is respected and that no
small group can manipulate its way into control of the Party.

These difficulties in the California Green Party have no connection with
the events around the 2004 elections. Many of the supporters of David
Cobb have made it clear they oppose fusion, and some have voted for the
GDI proposals while others have voted against, but most if not all are
opposed to this manipulative attempt to take over the Green Party.

THE COMING RADICALIZATION

It is my opinion that the massive radicalization we see in Latin America
may be the beginning of one of those waves that seem to come about every
thirty years attempting to increase democracy and freedom in the world.
The Green Party is well positioned to play a critical and positive role,
along with many allies. if it can develop team leadership that works
well together, respects democracy and is committed to our platform by
maintaining the complete independence of our party from the two parties
of money. The Green Party of California is the pearl of the Green Party
in the United States. Let us work together to save our party, to assure
its internal democracy and to keep it independent.

*There are two Green Parties in Utah

--^----------------------------------------------------------------
This email was sent to: walterlx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a2iT5E.a35A8e.d2FsdGVy
Or send an email to: Votecamejo-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxx

For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit:
http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER
--^----------------------------------------------------------------




_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism