Occupation [Political] Party Emerging Now

[Die Neue Zeit]

http://www.addpr.com/articles/politics/97409.html

(Spreading the word: http://anewkindofparty.blogspot.com/2011/11/occupy-occupation-party.html and http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/e051d92b782d40c2883fd77f3ba2e5d4/OH--Occupy-Political-Party/)



The Occupation Party
The Political Elite Will Rule No More
For more info, media may contact:
Frances Arroyo
Media Coordinator
The Occupation Party

Email: [email protected]



News Release:

Cincinnati, OH: We are the 99%. We are your neighbors and co-workers, the people you pass in the grocery store and on the street. We are underpaid, underemployed, overworked, overtaxed, underinsured, and underappreciated. We don’t have a decent living wage; some of us don't have a wage at all. Our kids face a bleak future of large student loans and few, if any, employment prospects after college. We are frustrated by news of manufacturing jobs being shipped overseas, using our bailout money. We are angry about CEOs of big corporations receiving million-dollar bonuses and returning record corporate profits due to the influx of "bailout" money--money obtained from the hard work of average taxpayers. Many of us are upside down in our mortgages due to fraudulent business practices used by the same institutions we bailed out. Sadly, most of us are one to two paychecks away from financial ruin.
According to a recent CNN poll, 90% of Americans say that current economic conditions remain poor, with no end in sight. What unites these Americans? It is their discontent and frustration with current government and economic processes. It is their dissatisfaction at not being heard. Many Americans believe that government and corporate America are overdue for an immediate overhaul!
A new political party, The Occupation Party, is emerging from these frustrations. The Occupation Party believes that the needs of the average American are not being fully realized under the current political process and aims to restore the founding principles of our government. The Occupation Party believes that the only way to ensure that the American people’s voice is heard is by fully engaging in the democratic process.
Are you one of the 99%? You are if you believe that we need transparency in government. You are if you want a better present and a better future for your kids. You are if you think that big business has been given a pass to continue with business as usual at the expense of the citizens. You are if you want a decent living wage. You are if you want corporations to equally share the tax burden. You are if you want access to the health care that the US was once world-renowned for providing. You are if you believe that Washington needs to listen to all citizens again. You are if you want a government of the People, for the People, and by the People. It’s time our voices were heard!


About Us: What is The Occupation Party?

The Occupation Party represents the 99% of Americans who want reform that brings back honesty and transparency into our governmental and political institutions—in short, a return to government that is truly by the people, for the people and that serves the interests of the people first and foremost.

Why Do We Need A Political Party?

Some claim the will of the 99% is adequately represented by the existing political parties. But the evidence says otherwise. Both the Democratic and Republican parties are equally driven by donors’ dollars (corporate and individual), and are taking actions and supporting policies that benefit corporate and wealthy interests over those of the rest of us. Many of those actions and policies have long-term results that run counter to the best interests of the country as a whole.

That’s why a separate political party is needed to translate the energy and ideas of the Occupy Wall Street movement and the 99% into concrete, actionable solutions to fix our nation’s problems. Someone needs to act with the needs of the people in mind, not just the privileged elite that funds our elections in order to control our policies.

What Does The Occupation Party Plan to Do?

Our action plan is a work-in-progress, and we encourage members of the public to participate in our forums and discussions about the best responses to the many difficult issues our nation faces.

Currently, our plan includes actions on three fronts:

1. Spread the Word, Tell the Truth

For now, we are working to spread awareness of what’s really behind our nation’s woes. Part of the problem is that those benefiting from the status quo have invested a great deal of energy and resources into obscuring the real issues. And they make backroom deals, get under-the-table handouts, and ferociously attack anyone who questions them, loudly and repeatedly, on any grounds they can find.

Their tactics are designed to confuse. They cloud or distract from the truth and marginalize or de-legitimize anyone who dares to call them out or question their actions.

The media has its own profit motive to consider when choosing what to cover and how to cover it, and is often just as invested in the status quo for its own reasons. It is no longer the reliable, unbiased source of information it once was.

But the facts speak for themselves, and the results that the privileged elite and moneyed interests are getting from our politicians in exchange for their money are readily apparent. We just need to pull together the evidence and present it in a simple, straightforward way. Without information that directly counters the lies and exposes the tactics of the privileged elite and corporate interests, they have enjoyed years of success and have undermined the peoples’ voice in our democracy. This must change.

2. Create Consensus, Rebuild Democracy

The only way to restore the voice of the 99% is to first make connections. Whether direct or representative, democracy works only if the people participate. We’re working to set up a community in which everyone can be heard and all ideas are considered. Our nation’s problems are big, and we need help from everyone to solve them.

We encourage everyone to participate in our forums and via social media to make the process of developing our platform and positions as inclusive and consensus-based as possible. We are a diverse nation, and every viewpoint has validity, all feedback is valuable. Our ultimate goal is to ensure that every policy is considered in light of its impact on the 99% before it’s implemented–our platform included.

3. Define Problems, Seek Solutions

As awareness increases and once our community and communications channels are set up, we will be working together to define the problems and seek actionable solutions. The process won’t be easy because the problems are huge and all voices need to be heard. But as long as we work together toward our common goal of government that accurately and effectively represents the people, we’ll get there, one step at a time, one issue at a time, one problem at a time, one solution at a time.

Our problems weren’t created overnight, and they won’t be fixed overnight. But they can be fixed, and they must be fixed to preserve the uniquely American dream of opportunity for all.

We Need Your Support

If you have had enough of the corruption of our government by a privileged, moneyed few, if you are tired of being angry and are ready to do something to fix things, if you want to help find solutions, and if you are ready to tackle the tough work of turning things around (even if you’re not ready), we encourage you to join us, participate in our forums, support our candidates, and donate to support our efforts.

When the people unite and participate, the elite shall rule no more
Contact Info: Frances Arroyo - [email protected]
Tyrone Givens - [email protected]

[Postmodern Revolutionary]

A party of laughable people who believe that they can succeed politically without corporate donors.

[Zav]

How do these protesters expect to bring proper representation to the people when the voting system inherently swells or dwindles a vote's value depending on the unjust factors of location and existing officials?

[socialistjustin]

They won't get any air time and will lose in the elections. People will get apathetic yet again and nothing will be gained.

Actions like the one in Oakland really does put the winds at the back of the working class. Occupation and other such things gives people the feeling that they can challenge the capitalist system. Losing heavily in elections does not.

[Martin Blank]

Yet another funnel for the Democrats -- it doesn't "serve our purpose to challenge" Obama in 2012. It's the "Working Families Party" on crystal meth. May it die slowly and in agony.

[Rocky Rococo]

How independent and grassroots is this attempt at diversion and recouping? It announces itself with a press release to AddPR. Says it all right there. The best part is they don't even realize that they're tipping their hand by doing that. Does it get more 1%-ish than that?

[Q]

How independent and grassroots is this attempt at diversion and recouping? It announces itself with a press release to AddPR. Says it all right there. The best part is they don't even realize that they're tipping their hand by doing that. Does it get more 1%-ish than that?

Could you explain that to someone who never heard of AddPR?

From across the pond it looks like the movement is taking some basic (and possibly wrong) steps towards political conclusions. Something we should rather welcome.

[Rocky Rococo]

Could you explain that to someone who never heard of AddPR?

From across the pond it looks like the movement is taking some basic (and possibly wrong) steps towards political conclusions. Something we should rather welcome.

Sure. AddPR is a document dumping ground for corporate press releases. Essentially a business news service, mostly for announcing corporate quarterly reports and such like.

[mrmikhail]

They won't get any air time and will lose in the elections. People will get apathetic yet again and nothing will be gained.

Actions like the one in Oakland really does put the winds at the back of the working class. Occupation and other such things gives people the feeling that they can challenge the capitalist system. Losing heavily in elections does not.

So very true. This will fall to the fate of most "populist" parties in history, with a lack of unity aside from a "down with the 1%!" call and so many differing ideologies within it. It's doomed to factionalism, no (positive) media coverage, little if any support in the form of finances, and above all few people are going to actually even bother voting for a party of such a nature.

If anything this is the exact wrong direction to move with the OWS movement, and will likely see the momentum it's gains gave it and die off with winter and will fade into memory with yet more of the status quo in US politics.


Edit add: Have you looked at their website? Aside from looking like a fucking college student's tumblr blog, their political platform is nothing but financial and electoral reform (which granted need to be carried out in some way, I suppose if america maintains it's current system) without touching on any other political issue at all....as if corporations, billionaires, and banks are the only problems america has :rolleyes:

[Lee Van Cleef]

I don't see what's wrong with putting out a press release. At worst, it may reach an unintended audience.

That said, I don't really have high expectations for this new party. Their platform looks just as vague as some of the recent drafts for "goals and visions" that have come out of the New York General Assembly.

The other thing that's interesting to me is that this apparently originated with people involved in the Cincinnati protest. Cincinnati is perhaps the most conservative major city in the country, and home to both leaders of the GOP. I have quite a few friends over there who say that the Occupy protest there is pretty small, and has a more right-wing bend, with "End the Fed" signs and the like.

I don't know the personal politics of the two people who issued the press release, but I'd imagine that they are individual actors who are part of a minority of an already small branch of the Occupy movement. The whole debate on whether or not the movement should for a party is probably moot for now, as I suspect this is dead on arrival.

[Q]

If anything this is the exact wrong direction to move with the OWS movement, and will likely see the momentum it's gains gave it and die off with winter and will fade into memory with yet more of the status quo in US politics.

I'm somewhat amazed by the anti-party sentiment in this thread, this often from people that are in so-called parties themselves!

I would content that if a movement is serious about putting forward an alternative for the whole society, in other words, spanning the whole working class, then it can only be active on the political plane. This is a correct direction.

What is wrong (or more precise immature) about it is the proto-class analysis in the form of the "99%" versus the "1%". This needs to be developed more clearly so the movement can develop more distinctly into a working class direction. If this doesn't crystallise, then it wold indeed seem likely that this formation develops itself into an appendage of the Democrats in no time.

I don't actually see anywhere in the OP a "vote for us" mentality though. What I read is an invitation for activists to think and participate in this. And this is exactly what communists ought to do, as long as there is an open space for us to participate in, if we want it to develop into something better.

As a last point: The movement will almost inevitably die out in the winter. This was clear from the start. But this doesn't really matter. What matters is that the people in it have the lessons taken with them from the Occupy movement next year, whatever form the movement will take then. What we can do is provide people with the correct lessons.

[mrmikhail]

I'm somewhat amazed by the anti-party sentiment in this thread, this often from people that are in so-called parties themselves!

I am not in a party, the WIL is an organisation of Trotskyists, we do not partake in elections nor do we support candidates running in US elections of standing parties, instead we focus on organising the workers directly with unions and so on. But the point of the matter is that this is a "populist" party with so few political aims it is pointless to even form a party.....



I would content that if a movement is serious about putting forward an alternative for the whole society, in other words, spanning the whole working class, then it can only be active on the political plane. This is a correct direction.

The problem with this is that the "99%" is not all working class, but rather the middle class makes up a good portion of it, and working with the middle class to achieve something is not a step in the correct direction


What is wrong (or more precise immature) about it is the proto-class analysis in the form of the "99%" versus the "1%". This needs to be developed more clearly so the movement can develop more distinctly into a working class direction. If this doesn't crystallise, then it wold indeed seem likely that this formation develops itself into an appendage of the Democrats in no time.

I don't actually see anywhere in the OP a "vote for us" mentality though. What I read is an invitation for activists to think and participate in this. And this is exactly what communists ought to do, as long as there is an open space for us to participate in, if we want it to develop into something better.

See the previous statement, the problem is it isn't an all working class movement....it is all inclusive and similar to the Mensheviks, I suppose you could say. This is just going to be another "third" party with no support that isn't going to get anywhere because of the fact that the US political system is machined so that only democrats and republicans can gain anything.


As a last point: The movement will almost inevitably die out in the winter. This was clear from the start. But this doesn't really matter. What matters is that the people in it have the lessons taken with them from the Occupy movement next year, whatever form the movement will take then. What we can do is provide people with the correct lessons.

This much is true, but when a movement goes inactive, it has the great potential to simply be forgotten and lose all it gained and not be reformed at a later date.

[Q]

But the point of the matter is that this is a "populist" party with so few political aims it is pointless to even form a party.....
The Chartist movement had exactly 6 demands, yet Marx and Engels engaged with it and tried to steer this movement towards an explicit working class direction.

I'm not saying Occupy is equal to the Chartist movement, I'm pointing out a method in how communists relate to movements.


The problem with this is that the "99%" is not all working class, but rather the middle class makes up a good portion of it, and working with the middle class to achieve something is not a step in the correct direction
To use the Chartist example again: There too it was a mixed (and therefore vague) movement, until the working class part splitted off and went their own way on a clear independent class basis. And while Chartism eventually did not succeed, it did train a whole generation for political class combat.


See the previous statement, the problem is it isn't an all working class movement....
I'm then going to ask you if you're waiting for the perfect, unmuddled and explicitly working class movement to spring out of thin air?

You'll be waiting until the end of days.

You might argue that by working in unions, you do get an explicit working movement. But this has a big limitation in that unions are organised on a sectional basis and not on an all-society one. This is one of the reasons union-led fights will not logically flow into political fights.

The fight to make the unions into an all-society force (something which the union bureaucrats oppose and for that reason also a fight against the bureaucrats) is exactly a political fight.


it is all inclusive and similar to the Mensheviks, I suppose you could say.
Totally offtopic, but it is nothing like the mensheviks.


This is just going to be another "third" party with no support that isn't going to get anywhere because of the fact that the US political system is machined so that only democrats and republicans can gain anything.
The problem with the responses here (not just you btw) is that while the OP makes an announcement about taking political steps, everyone seems to conclude that this must automatically mean "yet another third party". While this is likely, I do note that there is an opening for communists to intervene and convince the movement to go on a different road. We can only ensure the "yet another third party" scenario to occur by not doing anything and dismissingly hoping it will die "slowly and in agony".

[Ravachol]

Yes, let's build another recuperating apparatus. Let's try 'the long march through the institutions' again, that worked so well in the aftermath of '68! Dear god will the buffoons drunk on 'legitimate' political power never learn :confused:

[mrmikhail]

The Chartist movement had exactly 6 demands, yet Marx and Engels engaged with it and tried to steer this movement towards an explicit working class direction.

I'm not saying Occupy is equal to the Chartist movement, I'm pointing out a method in how communists relate to movements.


To use the Chartist example again: There too it was a mixed (and therefore vague) movement, until the working class part splitted off and went their own way on a clear independent class basis. And while Chartism eventually did not succeed, it did train a whole generation for political class combat.

The Chartist movement was a working class movement in itself......while it did have a lasting effect on the labour movement it was, as you state, in itself unsuccessful.



I'm then going to ask you if you're waiting for the perfect, unmuddled and explicitly working class movement to spring out of thin air?

You'll be waiting until the end of days.

You might argue that by working in unions, you do get an explicit working movement. But this has a big limitation in that unions are organised on a sectional basis and not on an all-society one. This is one of the reasons union-led fights will not logically flow into political fights.

The fight to make the unions into an all-society force (something which the union bureaucrats oppose and for that reason also a fight against the bureaucrats) is exactly a political fight.

Organising unions is a key factor in forming this very movement, to push for universal unionisation and then to have the unions form (Speaking on terms of America here) a labour party with a socialist agenda and then you will get an all working class force.



Totally offtopic, but it is nothing like the mensheviks.

Was referring to the similarities in the formation of the party (large movement, little organisation) and having a wide political ideological base.



The problem with the responses here (not just you btw) is that while the OP makes an announcement about taking political steps, everyone seems to conclude that this must automatically mean "yet another third party". While this is likely, I do note that there is an opening for communists to intervene and convince the movement to go on a different road. We can only ensure the "yet another third party" scenario to occur by not doing anything and dismissingly hoping it will die "slowly and in agony".

Communists are, and have been, active in the OWS movements around the US, attempting to steer the movement in a socialistic direction, the formation of this party seems to just be taking a few demands to blame all of the US problems on and clinging to them as a platform with no ideology behind it. I doubt it will even gain the majority of the occupiers to support it....so it's death will more than likely be a fast and painless death of forgotten pointlessness.

[Martin Blank]

The Chartist movement had exactly 6 demands, yet Marx and Engels engaged with it and tried to steer this movement towards an explicit working class direction.

I'm not saying Occupy is equal to the Chartist movement, I'm pointing out a method in how communists relate to movements.

...

To use the Chartist example again: There too it was a mixed (and therefore vague) movement, until the working class part splitted off and went their own way on a clear independent class basis. And while Chartism eventually did not succeed, it did train a whole generation for political class combat.


There is one basic flaw in your argument: The Chartists were a mass movement, and those involved agreed with it being a movement and having specific demands. This so-called "Occupation Party" is the brainchild of a quartet of petty-bourgeois liberals and self-appointed "leaders"; it is not a product of the #Occupy movement itself, and should not be confused with it.

[Q]

There is one basic flaw in your argument: The Chartists were a mass movement, and those involved agreed with it being a movement and having specific demands. This so-called "Occupation Party" is the brainchild of a quartet of petty-bourgeois liberals and self-appointed "leaders"; it is not a product of the #Occupy movement itself, and should not be confused with it.

That does clarify a lot. Thank you for explaining the context a little better for someone not living in the US. I never heard of these figures before and the OP is formulated thus as if it speaks for the movement with some contact persons listed.

If it really is just four self-declared "leaders" cut off from the movement, then this obviously is a dead end.

[Os Cangaceiros]

There are some things people need to realize here about American politics.

One is that the USA's system is not like the system of much of Europe. The USA is where third parties go to die.

Another is that parties based on whatever populist stirring of the time don't last or really make much of an impact at all. The Populists, the Progressives, etc. Someone elsewhere made an apt comparison: they're like bees. They sting once (in this analogy, stinging is shocking the political culture in some way) and then die. They die because one of the major parties (in the case of OWS, this would undoubtedly be the Democrats) adopt pieces of their rhetoric which they think resonates with people. If the Libertarian Party ever became popular, the GOP would commence assimilation at once.

Trying to convert OWS into a standard participant in the USA's electoral system would be a disaster, an utter disaster. It would be pulverized into dust by the sheer resources of the two major parties alone.

[Left Coast MoFo]

Sounds good. I seriously think that we can't rely on the established parties anymore, The challenge obviously is getting this off the ground in a serious way. It is a daunting task, which will require a serious effort. So what is the plan?

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Join along with other activists across the country?


Yet another funnel for the Democrats -- it doesn't "serve our purpose to challenge" Obama in 2012. It's the "Working Families Party" on crystal meth. May it die slowly and in agony.

Care to elaborate?

I've read discussions by American posters saying that third parties should target state legislatures and the federal HoR and Senate way before putting up presidential candidates. This organization has yet to target state legislatures, for sure.

OTOH, the "Working Families Party" endorses the Dems through formal electoral mechanisms, and doesn't bother to run for legislatures at higher levels of government.


So very true. This will fall to the fate of most "populist" parties in history, with a lack of unity aside from a "down with the 1%!" call and so many differing ideologies within it. It's doomed to factionalism, no (positive) media coverage, little if any support in the form of finances, and above all few people are going to actually even bother voting for a party of such a nature.

Besides all of what comrade Q said above, I'm not so pessimistic, and IMO I think this new group may have the potential to at least replace the perennially hopeless Green Party and exceed them - even on the level of mere petit-bourgeois politics. I mean, think about it: the least politically aware Americans think that the Greens are merely a "single-issue" party (the environment). This new formation doesn't have that flaw.


Someone elsewhere made an apt comparison: they're like bees. They sting once (in this analogy, stinging is shocking the political culture in some way) and then die. They die because one of the major parties (in the case of OWS, this would undoubtedly be the Democrats) adopt pieces of their rhetoric which they think resonates with people. If the Libertarian Party ever became popular, the GOP would commence assimilation at once.

Trying to convert OWS into a standard participant in the USA's electoral system would be a disaster, an utter disaster. It would be pulverized into dust by the sheer resources of the two major parties alone.

What's wrong with the first step of gaining more concrete, dues-paying members (not electorally "registered members") in numbers exceeding the Greens or Libertarians?


There is one basic flaw in your argument: The Chartists were a mass movement, and those involved agreed with it being a movement and having specific demands. This so-called "Occupation Party" is the brainchild of a quartet of petty-bourgeois liberals and self-appointed "leaders"; it is not a product of the #Occupy movement itself, and should not be confused with it.

It might be a product, comrade, if Occupy activists in other areas of the country hop in.

[The Douche]

IMO, I'm not so pessimistic, and think this new group may have the potential to replace the Green Party.

Hahahaha, oh DNZ...

This is exactly what everybody is saying. It could end up just like the greens. Which is to say, a useless organization of middle class liberals who have no chance of ever getting elected and enacting even the most pathetic of reforms.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

It will probably have its high moments but like the Tea Party time will make it an irrelevant third party.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The Tea Party never formed independently. :confused:

[TheGodlessUtopian]

The Tea Party never formed independently. :confused:

I mean more in regards to being a political force.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Well, I think the Occupation Party should consider as full a spectrum of political activity as possible. Electorally, that means running for state and federal legislatures, but this also means organizing in parallel spoilage campaigns (particularly for executive offices). Non-electorally, this means organizing mass protests, civil disobedience campaigns, etc.

[Q]

Well, I think the Occupation Party should consider as full a spectrum of political activity as possible. Electorally, that means running for state and federal legislatures, but this also means organizing spoilage campaigns (particularly for executive offices). Non-electorally, this means organizing mass protests, civil disobedience campaigns, etc.

If this initiative ever gets traction among the actual Occupy movement and beyond, yes, it totally should.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

There are some things people need to realize here about American politics.

One is that the USA's system is not like the system of much of Europe.

This.

Not only do the majority of people note vote here, but the majority of voters themselves don't "belong" to a party. They simply pull a lever every 4 years. Only a few are involved in local Democrat or Republican clubs. There are no party meetings, no one goes over platforms, there are no programs, etc.

And even European parties are and have been moving away from the European system to a large extent.

There are a handful of posters here that strangely obsess over the old SPD style of organization, not being able to accept that it died with ... the SPD; hasn't arisen anywhere else; won't arise anywhere else.

The days of mass parties are over. The ones that still exist have been transformed long ago. Which side are you on? Do you want to force austerity cuts under a red banner, or fight against them in the streets? Will you join the KKE's blockade of parliament, or get down with those trying to fight their way inside?

When it comes to Occupy, one of the biggest dangers from the beginning has been the attempt to steer it back into the realm of "acceptable" (read:bourgeois) politics. That our Kautskyists-from-afar would cheer attempts at that is to be expected.

But militants have been fighting against that and continue to do so, out of necessity. Here you have, for the first time in decades, people across the country, and even the world, getting together on a regular basis to discuss the issues they're facing and how to deal with them. They are outside of official politics, against the bourgeois system, trying to self-organize, whether or not they are all cognizant of this fact. This is what must be protected against those who try to bring it back into the fold of the bourgeois political system -- under any of 1000 different flags. It must also be protected from Democratic politicians who damn it with faint praise, the union bureaucracy, the NGOs, the "third party" buffoon, etc.; but also the professional activists from the "far left" that want to turn into their own little pet projects, smother it, drown it, and destroy it.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The days of mass parties are over. The ones that still exist have been transformed long ago. Which side are you on? Do you want to force austerity cuts under a red banner, or fight against them in the streets? Will you join the KKE's blockade of parliament, or get down with those trying to fight their way inside?

I disagree. In fact, the days of ad hoc councils, assemblies, etc. being credible organs have themselves long since gone. All they are these days are perpetual failures at worst (and yielding the wrong lessons at that), and limited successes at best (and still yielding the wrong lessons).

Re. the the Greek situation, I would rather be with a mass organization that would monopolize or oligopolize (re. actual front work) an occupation of the parliament for the purposes of mass civil disobedience (http://www.revleft.com/vb/kkes-actions-october-t163088/index.html?p=2276105). That way, the blockade outside can also prevent hooligans from needlessly throwing rocks and Molotov cocktails at the windows for the sake of "diversity of tactics."

If sympathetic but independent activists wish to "join in the action," they'll have to sign up for candidate membership at some nearby membership recruitment booth.


When it comes to Occupy, one of the biggest dangers from the beginning has been the attempt to steer it back into the realm of "acceptable" (read:bourgeois) politics. That our Kautskyists-from-afar would cheer attempts at that is to be expected.

You just don't appreciate the political commitment that comes with learning programs and their methods, paying dues, attending branch meetings, and carrying out actions agreed upon by one's accountable representatives (whether as conference/congress/convention "delegates" or as executive committee members).


Here you have, for the first time in decades, people across the country, and even the world, getting together on a regular basis to discuss the issues they're facing and how to deal with them.

Issues, perhaps, but I don't see much "how to deal with them" discussions.


They are outside of official politics, against the bourgeois system, trying to self-organize

Official "politics" is hollow, I agree, but your alternative is as equally hollow.


It must also be protected from Democratic politicians who damn it with faint praise, the union bureaucracy, the NGOs, the "third party" buffoon, etc.; but also the professional activists from the "far left" that want to turn into their own little pet projects, smother it, drown it, and destroy it.

If you mean those activists who don't wish to grow this into a real movement, then I agree. However, real movements must be permanent.

[black magick hustla]

Re. the KKE, I would rather be with a mass organization that would monopolize an occupation of the parliament for the purposes of mass civil disobedience. That way, the blockade outside can also prevent hooligans from needlessly throwing rocks and Molotov cocktails at the windows.




jesus. well i would rather be with drunken football hooligans fighting kke in the streets then

[the last donut of the night]

Re. the the Greek situation, I would rather be with a mass organization that would monopolize an occupation of the parliament for the purposes of mass civil disobedience. That way, the blockade outside can also prevent hooligans from needlessly throwing rocks and Molotov cocktails at the windows.


damnit dnz

[Os Cangaceiros]

What's wrong with the first step of gaining more concrete, dues-paying members (not electorally "registered members") in numbers exceeding the Greens or Libertarians?

That's certainly setting the bar pretty low.

NHIA made some good points that I agree with. In Europe, there's a certain amount of value placed on the idea of compromise and cooperation between competing state factions. This expresses itself in coalition governments, in which even marginal parties can have a shot at participating in the governmental process (through the voting system itself, as opposed to the "winner takes all" system).

That isn't like American politics at all. There is no value put on compromise here, it's all about destroying the opposition. As soon as an OWS Ross Perot pops up and starts talking about income inequality, you can bet that a Democratic candidate is gonna say, "hey, you know, this income inequality thing is baaaaaaad. But who do you expect to fix it, me or that spoiler over there?" And yet another pointless footnote to American electoral history will be born.

Half of eligable voter don't even vote. That's a good thing, but it's 50% less than it should be. Those who do vote are thrall to the major parties, and I don't see any indication of that changing, the fact that currently Congress has the same approval as the AIDS virus not withstanding.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Let's see.. It's early in the 21st Century and all around the world we see people forming assemblies, holding open discussions, moving toward occupations and political strike action.

DNZ disapproves, because all these plebs have failed to build a new 19th Century mass social-democratic party, follow his obscure and absurd self-drafted program and/or anoint a new Ceasar.

You can't make this shit up.

I very rarely call for people to be banned, but I honestly think it would bring up the level of discussion a few levels if this guy's distracting mumbo jumbo was removed from the board. The majority of his posts make no sense to anyone but him, and what's left is full of fun stuff like desires for joining leftist cop-wannabees defending bourgeois government by force and advocacy of slave labor -- stuff that would normally get a user restricted.


Issues, perhaps, but I don't see much "how to deal with them" discussions.

I wouldn't imagine you see much of anything at all from behind your computer desk... besides the multiple tomes of self-referential gibberish you type up on a daily basis.

Back to it.

[Clarksist]

All this thread looks like is a bunch of leftists crossing their arms and refusing to participate in the political party that is forming around the largest wave of US protests in a very long time. The message of the Occupy movement can easily be turned into a leftist message, and here are "leftists" saying that its hopeless and bourgeois. What is hopeless is being disengaged from real political process because it "isn't radical enough," instead of participating and making it radical.

The skill of revolutionaries is to recognize revolutionary moments. Mass protests sweep across the US and a party is forming from some of the same organizers with the same message... sound like a revolutionary moment to anybody?

If you have a serious belief in socialism and the tenets of socialism -- participate! Not necessarily in this party, but don't think you're going to win any actual political victories by dismissing an obvious ally. The July 26th Movement wasn't "radical enough" either, and look at the victories that were won through it for Cuba.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ It doesn't sound like it, actually, but it sure beats the hell out of the anti-political abstentionism being expressed here.


NHIA made some good points that I agree with. In Europe, there's a certain amount of value placed on the idea of compromise and cooperation between competing state factions. This expresses itself in coalition governments, in which even marginal parties can have a shot at participating in the governmental process (through the voting system itself, as opposed to the "winner takes all" system).

That isn't like American politics at all. There is no value put on compromise here, it's all about destroying the opposition.

The point for any pro-party class-strugglist left is precisely one of both intransigent opposition and "destroying the opposition" when given the opportunity.

Minority participation in coalition governments is a strategic dead-end road. This has been proven with the PCF, Rifondazione, and locally even Die Linke.


As soon as an OWS Ross Perot pops up and starts talking about income inequality, you can bet that a Democratic candidate is gonna say, "hey, you know, this income inequality thing is baaaaaaad. But who do you expect to fix it, me or that spoiler over there?" And yet another pointless footnote to American electoral history will be born.

Then there should be flexible tactics to minimize the losses.


Half of eligable voter don't even vote. That's a good thing, but it's 50% less than it should be. Those who do vote are thrall to the major parties, and I don't see any indication of that changing, the fact that currently Congress has the same approval as the AIDS virus not withstanding.

That half of eligible voters don't vote is a bad thing, because that's half of eligible voters not spoiling their ballots and using other means to express disgust at the registration and other mundane electoral processes.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Let's see.. It's early in the 21st Century and all around the world we see people forming assemblies, holding open discussions, moving toward occupations and political strike action.

You're the one here who's really exaggerating things. These assemblies come and go, not least of which due to not basing themselves on some dues-paying model and other measures of political commitment. They chatter, take limited action, but eventually fade away into obscurity.


I wouldn't imagine you see much of anything at all

Again, you're overrating things. This time, it's the effectiveness of "consensus."


DNZ disapproves, because all these plebs have failed to build a new 19th Century mass social-democratic party, follow his obscure and absurd self-drafted program and/or anoint a new Ceasar.

Just how many more failures can be counted for various ad hoc "organizations" and "movements"?

Also, Third World situations are irrelevant to this forum. :rolleyes:


stuff like desires for joining leftist cop-wannabees defending bourgeois government by force

Given developments in discussions, you're making things up.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/2852/marxismdnzstyle.jpg

[Die Neue Zeit]

They sure did, through the more permanent organizations (ahem, institutions) they belonged to. :)

[Veovis]

I'm somewhat amazed by the anti-party sentiment in this thread, this often from people that are in so-called parties themselves!

There is a big difference between a bourgeois party like this one, whose aim is to win elections, and a revolutionary socialist party, whose goal is to organize and radicalize the working class.

[Die Neue Zeit]

That's all well and good except, as comrade Miles noted, it isn't a bourgeois formation, but an initially petit-bourgeois one. There's also a big difference between offering constructive criticism and suggestions, and being crudely dismissive.

[black magick hustla]

All this thread looks like is a bunch of leftists crossing their arms and refusing to participate in the political party that is forming around the largest wave of US protests in a very long time. The message of the Occupy movement can easily be turned into a leftist message, and here are "leftists" saying that its hopeless and bourgeois. What is hopeless is being disengaged from real political process because it "isn't radical enough," instead of participating and making it radical.



its not "real political process" its the pet project of the assorted little lenin and self appointed messiahs. not all "real political processes" come in the veneer of institutions and permanent orgs.





The skill of revolutionaries is to recognize revolutionary moments. Mass protests sweep across the US and a party is forming from some of the same organizers with the same message... sound like a revolutionary moment to anybody?

its only a "revolutionary moment" for people who have never experienced a revolutionary moment.





If you have a serious belief in socialism and the tenets of socialism -- participate! Not necessarily in this party, but don't think you're going to win any actual political victories by dismissing an obvious ally. The July 26th Movement wasn't "radical enough" either, and look at the victories that were won through it for Cuba.

yep, lets build another cuba gueys (with the hookers and whitewashed resorts)

[Os Cangaceiros]

The point for any pro-party class-strugglist left is precisely one of both intransigent opposition and "destroying the opposition" when given the opportunity.

They'll never be given the opportunity, because they're severely outgunned by the GOP/Democratic political machine. Using the official political sphere for anything other than extremely limited reform is useless.


Minority participation in coalition governments is a strategic dead-end road. This has been proven with the PCF, Rifondazione, and locally even Die Linke.

The point I was making was not that these parties (whichever they might be, from the far right to the far left) enact effective legislation in furtherance of their goals/policies, but that they even have "breathing room" to exist in the first place. The lesser parties in the USA come into the world stillborn and never have the chance to attract even a modicum of popular support. Those rare ones that do actually create tremors in the political scene have their rhetoric usurped, as mentioned previously.


Then there should be flexible tactics to minimize the losses.

How 'bout just not waste time in a disgraceful institution? How's that sound?


That half of eligible voters don't vote is a bad thing, because that's half of eligible voters not spoiling their ballots and using other means to express disgust at the registration and other mundane electoral processes.

They're expressing their lack of faith/disgust just fine by not voting.

[Die Neue Zeit]

They'll never be given the opportunity, because they're severely outgunned by the GOP/Democratic political machine. Using the official political sphere for anything other than extremely limited reform is useless.

The point I was making was not that these parties (whichever they might be, from the far right to the far left) enact effective legislation in furtherance of their goals/policies, but that they even have "breathing room" to exist in the first place. The lesser parties in the USA come into the world stillborn and never have the chance to attract even a modicum of popular support. Those rare ones that do actually create tremors in the political scene have their rhetoric usurped, as mentioned previously.

And as I implied, although this proposal would be short of "workers revolution," grassroots-based, massive political change is still needed in the US political system to get rid of this crap.


They're expressing their lack of faith/disgust just fine by not voting.

No they aren't. They can be easily confused with the really politically apathetic, and those really too lazy to vote.

[Os Cangaceiros]

And as I implied, although this proposal would be short of "workers revolution," grassroots-based, massive political change is still needed in the US political system to get rid of this crap.

Massive political change isn't going to be spearheaded by the US Congress.


No they aren't. They can be easily confused with the really politically apathetic, and those really too lazy to vote.

Apathy in this case is a good thing. Obviously those who do not vote fail to see the voting process/political system as being in their best interest...if they did they'd vote. What the hell is the point of going in the polling station just to write some dumb shit on a ballot? Even if everyone who currently doesn't vote did that it wouldn't make a difference. It'd just be chocked up to the same political nihilism that's bemoaned by people who whine about voter absention (the system needs to be reformed, so we can have faith in our leaders/the political process again! no thank you, I have no interest in reform of the system, only it's destruction), and personally I'd rather sit on my ass and watch TV.

[Jose Gracchus]

Re. the the Greek situation, I would rather be with a mass organization that would monopolize an occupation of the parliament for the purposes of mass civil disobedience. That way, the blockade outside can also prevent hooligans from needlessly throwing rocks and Molotov cocktails at the windows.

If sympathetic but independent activists wish to "join in the action," they'll have to sign up for candidate membership at some nearby membership recruitment booth.

Says it all, really.

DNZ wants to run revolution like a county carnival. I wish I could feign disbelief--but that it has been way too long for that--rather the disbelief is reserved for the BA, which somehow does not find you restrictable, in my view. You openly dream of being a left-sect "peace cop".

[Die Neue Zeit]

DNZ wants to run revolution like a county carnival.

I wasn't writing about revolution in the Greek context. I was writing about mere regime change and other aspects of genuine political struggle. What I proposed is hardly a "county carnival." Dirty struggles require dirtier hands on the level of organizing things. :rolleyes:


You openly dream of being a left-sect "peace cop".

1. An actual mass organization is hardly a sect, though maybe I should have said "oligopolize" to be more accommodating towards other left groups agreeing upon the united action without question.
2. Civil disobedience has nothing to do with the "peace cop" crap you're trolling about.
3. This isn't Libcom. I don't share the viewpoint of the typical left-com strategic lines. :glare:

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

though maybe I should have said "oligopolize"

Or you could speak English.

[Die Neue Zeit]

EDIT: "Oligopolize" is English. Many others wrote of the "monopolizing of protests" phenomenon as a complain, you know. :glare:

[Martin Blank]

Let me say this one more time so we're all clear:

The so-called "Occupation Party" has NO CONNECTION to the #Occupy movement. Period. It is a vanity project of four petty-bourgeois liberals in Cincinnatti, Ohio. It has NO FOLLOWING outside of these four. It is NOT an outgrowth of the #Occupy movement, NOR is it an organic extension of #Occupy. It IS nothing more than a website, a press release and WISHFUL THINKING.

This reality check is brought to you by the letter G, as in: "Get your heads out of your asses and stop wasting time on this thread!"

[black magick hustla]

EDIT: "Oligopolize" is English. Many others wrote of the "monopolizing of protests" phenomenon as a complain, you know. :glare:

are you even real hooooooooooly shit

[the last donut of the night]

DNZ, as it's been pointed out this Occupy Party is just a liberal pet project. Even if it were a result of the "political developments" in this country -- which it isn't, since the occupy protests haven't been that profound yet -- it shouldn't be something for workers and leftists to be fooled into advocating for. It seems like you just don't see it. These mass-party tactics just don't work anymore, especially in a country like the US where the two-party system is so entrenched in the political process that it's just a huge waste of time for anyone to break it from within without becoming a front group for either the Republicans or the Democrats, basically as the Greens are today for the Dems (also how the fuck did you say we should try to model ourselves after them?).

Most people don't care for voting anymore, and that's good. We shouldn't be arrogant liberals and team up with union bureaucrats, petty-bourgeois politicians and the like and call them over to a party which has no future except being a funnel for one of the big parties. We're interested in working class independence, not electoral lip-service. The SPD is dead, dude. Get over it. So is Caesar btw, which brings me to another point: NHIA, yeah, I agree, ban hammer would be nice.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Let me say this one more time so we're all clear

If that's the case, then perhaps this thread should be closed.