Do you agree with the suggestion by Anonymous that the movement should become a registered political party?

Submitted by occupation blog on

occupation blog's picture
No
54%
Yes
29%
Undecided
18%
Total votes: 468

30 Comments

And the reaction???

Submitted by LovingFighter on

I understand your concern.  I, myself, am at a loss on this issue.  I don't know what to make of it.  But I do think about it and I come up with these questions:

1)Do we think the powers that be will let their power slip away without fighting back? (And I'm not talking about just arresting people, but an escalation of repression not seen in decades.)  And, if we don't think so, 2) what can we do without political power to address this issue?

Before we dismiss the idea shouldn't we discuss it???  I think by not discussing it we are underestimating the power of the State.  According to history, the ruling class always reacts.

panther's picture

The Party of the 99

Submitted by panther on

I agree that we can and should find our own way! Nothing like to corrupt system we have now. A new way.  A party is just a means for people to come together to get power.  Power to have the kind of society we need.  A society where all people have safe warm homes, nutritious food and clean water, quality public education, health care, access to music, art, and fun, and a job where we contribute to our society.  The party of the 99 wouldn't be like any party before.  If we don't have political power, we can't change the society in any major way.  We will contantly be protesting and occupying parks.Laughing while those in political power (the 1% and their corporations and banks)  continue to structure society in their interests.

Smile

alhs06's picture

WTF? If we don't have political power we can't change society?

Submitted by alhs06 on

Prolonged protest pressures politicians, building & launching a new party is impractical.  We cant allow the current social brush fires to continue raging out of control. We don't have the time to build a new fire department before we douse the flames. Protest, march, boycott & shout!

 PRACTICE PRACTICAL

PRACTICE COMMON SENSE

My picture reads

"Sell a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach him how to fish and you ruin a perfectly good business opportunity."

The 1% philosophy

Rebelwithoutapause's picture

Politics is POLITRICKS....

Submitted by Rebelwithoutapause on

To effect real change we need to stay out of politics. The constant cry of the downtrodden and disenfranchised is enough. We have a system that works as long as we hold our representitves accountable and vote they're sorry butts out if they sell out to corporate greed. The hippies and Martin Luther KIng didn't need a party. Niether do we.

Let's stick to the basics: Make noise, state our demands (clearly), boycott those that continue to do business the old way. Hitting them in the pocketbook is the only way. 

====Rebel Without a Pause

 

The hippies and MLK?

Submitted by LovingFighter on

Need I remind you that they fell short of their goal?

I'm not saying that they failed bc they didn't have a party.  All I'm saying is they failed, so you might not want to use them as examples.

Mahayana's picture

I wouldn't say MLK failed

Submitted by Mahayana on

MLK and his speeches continue to move people to this day. His words still inspire many to take part and become activists or stand up against our oppressors. I would hardly consider that to be a failure.

The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves - in their separate, and individual capacities. -Abe

Don't take it literally

Submitted by LovingFighter on

I get your point.  I didn't mean it like that.  I just meant that perhaps those aren't good examples.

My point is that perhaps if movements became consolidated into a totality, which would be represented by a national organization, the movement could become greater than the sum of its parts.  Would the State still "neutralize" people it deemed dangerous?  Perhaps.  But I think it'd be harder to do so.  And if you think the capitalist State in the 21st century is above that kind of behavior, you are gravely mistaken.

I understand your concern LovingFighter...

Submitted by ArsenicAlyss on

It's just hard for me to get behind processes that are part of a government that from its origins has privileged the lives and voices of property-owning straight white men and built itself on the backs of everyone else. If we join their club and become a party, we will become very vulnerable to imitating their behavior. Being a party requires nominating candidates and picking leaders, and defining ourselves by a platform, and raising money...all things that have done us little good so far.

I am open to discussion though. I could probably move towards comfort with a political party if we had a very solid, radical accountability process in place.

I will find a way or make one. DIY or die. Occupy reality.

Thank you for your open mind!

Submitted by LovingFighter on

You make very valid points, and I actually agree with all of them.  But I also believe that one can't remain pure in an impure world.

I am a firm supporter of this movement, but I have my critiques.  For example, I think that whole 99% thing and the leaderless/leaderfull rhetoric are misleading.  The movement already has leaders.  They may not be the type of leaders that we're used to (Lenin, Obama, MLK, etc) but we have leaders.  There are those who are very outspoken and willing to take up more work than others.  These are leaders.  They are not permanent leaders, but they are leaders.  And I believe this movement needs them.  I'm not oppossed to these kinds of leaders.  And if we've been taught anything these past two weeks is that these leaders can be replaced/ignored if they stray from our core principles.

It is true that we will become vulnerable to imitating their behavior, were a 3rd party to be formed.  The hierarchical structures are already set and our environment influences us.  But I also think that we can influence our environment.  For example, lots of people have donated commodities and money to the occupiers at City Hall, but I don't think this will eventually make the occupiers behave in an exploitative way.  I guess my point is that we also have the power to affect the structures that surround us.  If we didn't then we wouldn't even be able to think about social change.

Whether a political party is capable of the kind of structural organization that we've been seeing at the GA's (direct democracy), I don't know.  One may also have critiques of Chavez and Morales in Venezuela and Bolivia.  But these movements have done a lot for the poor.  I'm not a determinist when it comes to social change.  I don't believe it can be top-down ala 20th Century Socialism, but I also don't think it can be all grassroots.  The reason for this is that the rich and powerful don't just vanish or change their minds about liking power.  The way ideology works is crazy.  Power becomes part of their character and their purpose, and they won't go down without a fight.  If we can defend ourselves non-violently and without the state that's great.  But every person I ask hasn't been able to address my concern.  I don't think it's necessary to have all the answers, but at least on this issue it would really help to hear some good arguments.  My mind is open, so if you have ideas feel free to share.

PS-I had no idea you were the one who wanted to start the affinity group. Awesome!

No to any political party

Submitted by gladiatorsteer on

I agree with the poster above that we need leaders, but like the zapatistas say "lead by obeying". leaders should lead by example and  they should represent their respective "communities" and should be subject to the will of those communtites.


also, in my opinion, it is the whole political system that has to be changed. obviously this is a long process that could take many years but i truly see the beginning of such a change in these nightly council meetings. True democracy is a long and sometimes painfull process but i think its a small price to pay for a better world. a political party would definitely be a step in the wrong direction. i think one of the reasons that the movements in the 60's were so revolutionary is because they decided to break with all government parties and institutions wether they were democrat or socialist or communist or whatever. I also think we saw what happened when those movements decided to take the political party route. they ended up being absorbed by the system.


we should try to create something new. the people that overthrew the old monarchies created something new in the parliamentary system. now its time to overthrow the parliamentary system.

We DON'T need a party, we DO need Electoral Legitimacy

Submitted by ultrarad on

Until and unless the representational system is changed (and whether and how is an entirely different discussion) this movement only accomplishes anything insofar as it affects the existing system.  So far it is only in the nebulous implied threat that the marginal voter influenced by or belonging to this movement might vote differently than he or she has in the past in favor of politicians who support some of the demands/agenda of the movement.  It remains the case that politicians with different views secure in their re-election prospects can dismiss this movement as "a vocal minority" for as long as less than 50% of their constituents are visibly supportive, and dismiss marginal majorities with "they're not all citizens" and "they don't all vote."

 

Still, a forming a political party will take energies and resources better focused otherwise, without any guarantee of doing anything other than tipping the balance much the way the Nader 2000 campaign did.

 

What I suggest is that we do something that counters what corporations do with their lobbying machines:  amend city and county charters to create elected People's Advocates who carry the same type of legitimacy as other elected representatives but: report to Constituent assemblies; serve only a single term; accept no campaign contributions; agree to refrain from paid lobbying, paid political consulting and competing in partisan elections for some period after their term; are required to conduct constituent polling; are given staff and administrative support; are subject to recall by petition without deadline; who lobby other representatives (e.g. with overlapping constituencies) on issues as directed by Constituent assemblies.  Additionally, Advocates might be empowered to publish in sample ballots lists of issues in which representatives seeking re-election or different office failed to represent concerns advanced by Constituent Assemblies.

 

Of course this will not change everything, and in itself would be a woefully insufficient accomplishment for this movement.  Nor will it address everything many in this movement are rightly concerned with. What it will do is create a routine process for regular access--or failing that, a clear and conspicuous indication of non-representation--for someone to bring forth issues of wide concern and engage in specific discussions about what will be done to address them, and report back as to what commitments were or were not made.

In other words, someone with an institutionally legitimate claim to represent the electorate without having attained it by virtue of the kind of election campaign or election issues that relate to who would be the best candidate for a particular portfolio of responsibilities (e.g. who would be the best mayor/senator/Commander-in-Chief, etc.) other than who will best respond to Constituent assemblies and make representatives come to account.

As a particularly relevant example, such an Advocate, if directed by constituents, could put the heat on representatives to propose/support a Constitutional Amendment to overturn the Citizens United ruling, and either gets action or forces representatives to reveal whom they represent through dialog in a very explicit way.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Radical also means staying critical and not drinking anyone's kool-aid.

Electoral Legitimacy

Submitted by eliminate2party... on

I love the picture you present, but feel that it, like creating a new party, would require a lengthy process of definition that doesn't appear realistic right now.  I'd like to see all the Occupations start pushing for prioritized (aka instant runoff) voting with 'None of the Above' as a mandatory choice.  With this method we would prioritize our selections and those with the least votes would be dropped and those voters' second choices counted in the next round until someone received >50%.  If the winner were None of the Above, there would have to be another election.  With this system, we could start to break the back of the two-party system, both of which parties are in collusion with big money, and we could vote for the few candidates who share our values without fearing that we're aiding someone worse, ala the Nader campaign.

For near-term effectiveness, I think we should have very visible voter registration tables at our encampments.  I sympathize with those who feel that voting is participation with a corrupt system, but we need the threat of massive voter participation to get any of the changes we want.  We know now that we won't be responding to promises and platitudes.  They have a year to show us what changes they can make.  We might vote; we might not; but we want the existing power structure to see that we're ready to make that choice.

we should work for direct democracy

Submitted by meg on

The greatest thing about this movement, besides the ways in which it is completely changing political discourse in the country, is that it is modeling forms of direct democracy and self-organization that most people have come into little contact with. This should be what we put forward to people: not a party with a platform of demands, but a new way of being political and ethical actors in the world.

Suspect_1's picture

Could It Be a Real 3rd Party?

Submitted by Suspect_1 on

 

If the Green Party had this kind of Juice in 2008....

Corporate Media would not have been able to shut out Real People like

Cynthia McKinney & Rosa Clemente.

While I distrust All Partisan PoliTrix...

You have the eyes & ears of the World...

Use It Or Lose It !

Keep The Peace!

 

Suspect_1

The Moment They Can Pin Us Down, We Lose.

Submitted by HopefulTara on

The wisdom of Naomi Klein should never be overlooked by this movement when she makes the point the that our strength lies in the fact that they cannot pin us down.

The greatest model for this movement is the brilliant legion of Anonymous, a true leaderless and democratic society with no hierarchy.

We must never allow ourselves to be painted into a corner, we must remain as the broadest of tents, with an open list to grievances if we are to continue to gain momentum.

No more "Hoping" for change, we have come to "Demand" the change, we are the 99%!

the power of the state

Submitted by LovingFighter on

Do not underestimate the power of the state.  I think a big part of this movement does just that.

If the state really wanted to pin people down it would do so.  They already got undercovers on the ground.  It's not hard figuring out who are the individuals doing most of the work, the most outspoken, the most uplifting, etc.

The state didn't just go after the MLK's and the Malcolm X's of the 60's.  The majority of the ones that were "neutralized" were the grassroots activists.

changing politics and ending them

Submitted by ItsAboutTime on

is going to have the same effect, I hope you can realize that if you were to change politics and 'our' system, it wouldn't be able to function and would fail, the system was programmed to fail, but make a few people really rich and powerful in the process, if you realize this you will then be able to understand why its got to go, come on now, we're a smart bunch, you tell me we can't think of a million ways to do it all better... i'm sure we could come up with a billion ways.. all based on logic and common sense, unlike now.

Overcome the shadow of control

alhs06's picture

The New Common Sense, That is total BS & deeply shallow to

Submitted by alhs06 on

The New Common Sense? No such thing, none, common sense is the same now as the first thought ever produced by a human brain.

Some want change through the creation of a new party, Good Fu*king Luck.

Some want change through a mass overhaul of our current political incumbent's, Good Fu*king Luck.

Change can only be achieved by the constant pressure applied by the masses on the incumbent's in letting them know that we have woken up & are aware of their Debauchery. Until we as a society return to our hibernation deep in complacency once again.

American's, as individuals are relatively smart, but as a group we are remarkably ignorant, & this breeds corruption by the corrupt. As the Politicians, Lobbyist's & Power Broker's have learned & developed a skill set for the profitable abuses in working with this knowledge. When we as a group become educated & voice our knowledge through forceful methods as demonstration, protest & the boycott, the corrupt lose the skill set built on our ignorance.

We need to remove the virus, not just replace our firewall. capice?

My picture reads

"Sell a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach him how to fish and you ruin a perfectly good business opportunity."

The 1% philosophy

"Play Dirty" to Compete

Submitted by Nota Doormat on

As we can all plainly see, politics in the United States is locked into a corrupt two party system. Not all of our politicians are corrupt (Bernie Sanders, Sharrod Brown, Dennis Kucinich, Tom and Mark Udall and maybe a few others), but most have soldout to their corporate overlords. It is the corrupt politicians who are threatened by the very existance of the #Occupy Movement. But now, the Movement must cause political actions to occur. I submit this astute letter from an imprisoned climate activist Tim Dechristopher: http://www.grist.org/politics/2011-11-14-letter-from-a-climate-activist-...

We really don't have a choice

Submitted by legalizitt on

If we really truely want to affect change, the Party already in place is our Party, the People's Party, the Democratic Party.  The Democratic Party has become, in many respects, as bad as the Republican Party, but it's not too late to bring it back to its roots.

Social conservatives have jacked the GOP, taking it from the Party that represents the interests of business, and morphing it into a faux-moral, faux-religious, faux-social rightwing Party.  Make no mistake, the GOP is still the Party of business; they are hiding behind the curtains of the social conservatives, and they are doing it for the votes.  Karl Rove saw the power of Rush Limbaugh and the religious right, and aligned the Party with them, and then Fox News came about in the wake.

When the GOP wasn't catering to their hard line demands, they branched off into the Tea Party, and have taken over the controls.

We can and should do the same to the Democratic Party, after all, it is the Party of The People and its intent is to counterbalance the Party of Business.  We have the opportunity to force the Democratic Representatives to actually represent us, or elect Democrats who will.

Learn from the Tea Party

Submitted by pauld108 on

I disagree with the Tea Party objective but do respect their tactics.  Like the Occupy movement, its leaders had three choices:  A) Be a social movement, B) Form a new political party, or C) Take over an existing party which is most closely aligned with their cosmology.  The Tea Party leaders also recognized two facts:  Fact #1:  It takes less people, time, and money to take over an existing poligical party.  Fact #2:  The way to control a political party is to control the primary elections.  The mere threat of a primary challenge caused the tail to wag the dog.

I am not sure this is the way to go but this strategy clearly works.  BTW, if the "Green Party" had followed Tea Party tactics by taking over the Democratic Party, we would have better policies and candidates who actually were elected.  Instead, the Green Party helps elect Repulblicans by dividing the progressive vote.  

Paul

 

 

Yes/No

Submitted by Stevenoverturf on

Although a third non-corrupt party would be good, I fear it may cancel out 60% of America's voices and everyone must be heard. If there is a third party instead of requiring 60% or more votes to be elected it will only take a minimum of 34%. If two parties get 33% Then it goes to the one with 34% and all those people who voted for the other two, well their votes go to the 34%. Only way I could conceive the thought in my mind to have a third candidate in elections is if afterwards there was a 'Run Off' election in which, once again the candidate will require 60% or more votes.

G. Paumer's picture

The United Occupy Party

Submitted by G. Paumer on

   The mechanisms of this political system of ours have long been established.  The system is not going anywhere.  We all agree it needs to be changed, but we cannot change the game if we are not players in it.  I don't believe we should try to reinvent democracy.  The system is not broken per se, it's the people within it.  They lack morality.  Unfortunately, we are all human and fall short in one way or another.


   We need to form a "shadow" party.  One that uses a similar structure as the current political system to elect our leaders. With the use of current technologies, the United Occupy "Party" could be a party without jumping through the established hoops.  A system could be bulit that maintains a database of the members of the party, and via internet, used to inform them of actions, causes, fundraisers, and elections. Like the great (sarcasm) Grover Norquist, our power would come not from actually having elected representatives, but having weighted influence on them.  Think about it..."The Occupy Party endorses..."


   There is a link to the United Occupy Party petition at MoralRecession.com - I believe it is the next step. Sign it if you agree.

gpaumer

macbug's picture

What's next?

Submitted by macbug on

 

If the OWS/LA does not become a political party, then what? Not being involved in politics by the general populations is what got us into this mess in the first place. A registered political party would take work and compromise that could be a big problem given the extreme passions that run through our group. BUT it is doable if we could look at the big picture. OK we all know it stinks but, what made it stink? The answer could be our absence and corporate money, too many unemployed lawyers in politics? Yes to a degree, but what really did it, was a lack of political contrast caused by the practice of using polls to find out what people wanted to hear, then forming your message to say it. Neither of the big parties have a true political philosophy, they change it every election. That is the opportunity for a 3rd party with an unshakable philosophy of “The PEOPLE FIRST on all issues. Seems simple right? I can hear rush, and beck all ready their communists, or socialist etc. blah, blah blah...

 

 

 

 

Stay Angry and vote...

macbug

I think it would be interesting...

Submitted by iiulcer on

I think it would be interesting to have a party back the social movement, and introduce fresh, revolutionary ideas into traditional politics.  With the internet as it is, we have the technology nowadays to be able to engage the people directly by establishing an open forum and discussing political actions.  I think it's possible to establish a sort of dynamic identity as a party, but we'd have to get people who are really good at playing telephone from the municipal level up to the federal government.  That is, we need people who see the socio-political economic picture at each level (micro to macro) and keep everyone informed of the situation they're seeing, so we have eyes and ears at every level.   I think we need to establish good municipal level representation and build up communication so that the voice of the people grows louder at each level.  We don't necessarily have to be followers to party "leaders."  The people ultimately are the leaders, each and every one of us should be taking action.  Instead of relying on elite economists to tell us what's going on, we could have an online discussion with all the interested economists in california, and that discussion should be open to the public. I think it does beg the question of what we need in terms of leadership and who would be the best people to keep the group informed and cohesive, does it need to be people who focus on conflict resolution? educators/people who can convey info well?  If there is a problem with the vote splitting, then doesn't that just mean that the party needs to evolve to be able to address everybody's needs? Give voice even to your "opponents."  Whatever that means anyways.  At every level, I think we're just people who need our grievences met, and we need to learn how to function cohesively as a national team.  I think if occupy does form a party it would give them more control in crafting targeted regulatory win-win situations. 

Pages