Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
We are the 99 percent

The After Party: You Coming?

Posted 10 years ago on April 10, 2014, 8:56 a.m. EST by OccupyWallSt
Tags: You Are Needed, The After Party

"A message from some of our friends in Occupy." - OSN

Today, a group of occupiers, seasoned activists and future leaders are announcing the launch of a new political movement for a democratic revolution in the U.S.A.

Introducing: The After Party.

Two and a half years ago, we took to the streets in hundreds of cities to protest the financial elite and their cronies in government. We created protest communities in public spaces, abolished debt, wrote the Volcker Rule for financial reform, and helped hurricane survivors rebuild. Now, we’re challenging our corrupt government directly by building political power, starting at the local level.

The After Party isn’t a traditional political party in any sense. We organize by identifying and meeting a community’s needs from beyond the political system, and getting rid of corrupt politicians by getting our own community leaders into local office. We will feed the hungry, educate those who wish to learn, care for the sick, and house those whose homes have been taken. We will break the stranglehold of the broken two-party system by innovating and changing the rules of the game.

Read The After Party Manifesto.

We’re counting on you to tell your friends about the After Party, and help us get the word out about the new political party that will finally speak for, and with, young people, the poor, people of color, the homeless, the hungry, and the uninsured -- the same people who have been left out of the conversation for too long.

Like’ and ‘Follow’ us on Facebook and Twitter to stay up-to-date on Party news!

You coming?

In solidarity with the global 99%,

the After Party team



Read the Rules
[-] 7 points by Sinde (24) 10 years ago

FDR, and the the economic Bill of Rights (the second Bill of Rights), the four freedoms, including freedom from want, and freedom from fear (which Reagan twisted into 'enterprise', while omitting 'want and fear'). Saw Harvey J. Kaye (professor and author) on Bill Moyers the other day, great program. Bill starts out: If you believe America desperately needs a great surge of democracy in the face of fierce opposition from reactionary and corporate forces, etc. etc. Kaye believes "by making America more freer, more equal, and more democratic,~~~ that Americans have not forgotten the Four Freedoms as goals, but have “forgotten what it takes to realize them, that we must defend, sustain and secure democracy by ~ enhancing it. That’s what Roosevelt knew. That’s what Jefferson knew. And no one seems to remember that today. That’s what we have to remind people of.” I am looking forward to reading Kaye's latest book. The after party and this guy have to connect, maybe they already have : )

[-] 6 points by Sinde (24) 10 years ago

Awesome! Read the manifesto and the platform ~ YES! here we go ~ I have 'felt' for months that 2014 would see not only great change, but Also the manifestation (finally) of The Movement ~ in ways that have not been seen in decades

[-] 5 points by beautifulworld (23799) 10 years ago

"Every human being is entitled to food, shelter, education, employment, and healthcare.

By food, we mean food that nourishes.

By shelter, we mean clean and safe.

By education, we mean empowering and unfiltered.

By employment, we mean fulfilling and sustainable.

And by healthcare, we mean equal, free and accessible.

They say we can’t afford it.

Of course we can.

But not if we allow the greediest banks to gobble up our wealth and get bailed out.

Not if we let them make billions and sit on their mounds of cash.

Not if we let them stash trillions of dollars in offshore bank accounts.

Not if we let their lobbyists write the tax code.

We’re not broke.

It’s not a matter of money.

It’s a matter of commitment.

Now, we are committed."

Very nice. Amen to that.

[-] 0 points by flip (7101) 10 years ago

nice job beauty - remember fdr and is economic bill of rights - or whatever he called it - down the memory hole of history

[-] 5 points by nazihunter (215) 10 years ago

loved fdr. just loved him. a true American hero.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (23799) 10 years ago

Exactly, flip. No matter how anyone goes about reinstating the social contract, that is a very nice summary of the truths.

[-] 3 points by keithmchenry (3) 10 years ago

We have been feeding the hungry, caring for the ill, educating the poor and housing the homeless for decades already. What ever happened to the principles of Occupy Wall Street like no leaders, using the consensus process and forming our own post capitalist free society? Who ever proposed this idea never participated in Occupy. This is another great way to kill the movement. I would suggest people join their local Food Not Bombs group, start a Homes Not Jails chapter or some of the other great long lasting projects that helped initiate Occupy Wall Street and still hold true to the principles of the community we are creating. Screw this idea of a party. www.foodnotbombs.net

[-] 2 points by Penston (80) 10 years ago

The leaderless thing was a disaster (or a constructive failure, as people who participated say). Occupy's trying to evolve.

[-] 3 points by jart (1186) from New York, NY 10 years ago

Here's my analysis of "The After Party" along with constructive suggestions:

[-] 6 points by shadz66 (19985) 10 years ago

So jart, do you actually identify with The 99% ?! Never mind the pretty colours here (btw, consider that 'orange on yellow and sky blue on white' is NOT enough contrast and is painful on the eyes, imho) & .. either you or Grim & White need to get a grip on this forum, imo !! Furthermore, Dr. Margaret Flowers' commitment to The 99% Struggle is NOT in question I suggest !!!

Get over yourself sister, swallow your ego and .. you know - ''do no evil'' & ZD's comment has value too.

pax et lux ...



[-] 0 points by flip (7101) 10 years ago

hey jart, my first question what exactly is wrong with being a populist? secondly while I most likely agree with much of your philosophy I think we must be careful not to reach for the moon when what we need are steps in the right direction. by that I mean that the ford sit down strike accomplished a great deal - changed the country (at least temporarily). had they held out for the ideal of worker ownership of the company instead of higher wages and better conditions they most likely would have lost everything. we will never know - as I said I imagine we agree on much but it is doubtful the population is ready for real anarchy any time soon

[-] -1 points by bullfrogma (448) 10 years ago

It's interesting to read your assessments followed by all of the sighs of relief and cheering in these comments. I didn't read much of the after party myself, but this post is reminding me that anything can be made to look good; and what should normal people (who don't study these things and shouldn't have to) really believe? It's starting to make a whole lot of sense, that democracy alone doesn't amount to the truth. I don't think it's a question of having capitalism or socialism, but our creating a relationship between them to enhance their strength while solving their weakness. I just discovered the term "mixed economy" and that sounds pretty damn cool. Nature doesn't ever choose between Ying and Yang, it's always balance.

[-] 2 points by Penston (80) 10 years ago

bullfrogma, I think what matters more than the relationship between capitalism and socialism is the foundation on which they sit. If the rules are made for people to be included in sharing the wealth they create, then people will prosper under either capitalism or socialism. If the rules are made for the wealth to flow to the elite, then people will be repressed under either.

The Internet Party was recently launched in New Zealand. They're campaigning for better infrastructure to boost the economy and they have a very strong stance on the right to privacy. Compared to them, the After Party looks weak and blurry.

[-] -1 points by bullfrogma (448) 10 years ago

Think of succession, and don't assume all people are going to be good or do the right thing. Time changes everything, and rules change because the times change, and we have to count on that propensity for adaptation. Socialism and capitalism are the rules, that is the foundation, and it's the difference between democracy and liberty.

The rules are made for wealth to flow to the elite because we have way too much capitalism going on without any real democracy / socialism. But too much socialism throws individuality out the window, not to mention the tons of other problems it causes. Communism is certainly not the ultimate stage because it requires people to be of a like mind, backed by violence, such as prison.

[-] 2 points by Penston (80) 10 years ago

You're right that the rules change over time. However, capitalism and socialism are not the rules - they're platforms (frameworks?) which sit on top of the rules.

The automotive and meat packing industries used to pay their workers well. They were capitalist sectors. Over time, the rules changed so that the money flowed to the executives rather than the workers. They're still capitalist sectors, but the rules for sharing money around (i.e. the distribution of rights) has changed.

For now, the IT sector is a good place to work. Anyone can start a company and have a shot at making millions. Even if you work for someone else's company, you can become rich. This is capitalism in a relatively inclusive environment.

In the agriculture sector, farmers are producing bigger yields than at any other time in history, yet they're going deeper and deeper into debt (unless they're getting sufficient subsidies). It's illegal in 13 states to criticise food which has been produced using certain methods (look up the food liable laws) because it may lead to a decrease in the profits of various parties in the supply chain. This is capitalism in an extractive environment.

Capitalism isn't the problem - it's the rules which govern capitalism. This is why conservatives look at liberals as if they have two heads when they criticise capitalism - it worked for centuries before neoliberals shifted the rules to favour themselves. It worked BECAUSE America was the land of the free. That's no longer the case, which is why the economy behaves in an exploitative manner.

[-] -1 points by bullfrogma (448) 10 years ago

Capitalism: an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.

In other words, liberty.

Socialism: a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

In other words, democracy.

The problem with too much liberty is that you end up with Might is Right, such as these neoliberals you speak of. Capitalism is always going to end in monopoly simply because Might is Right. It needs democracy, aka socialism, to restrain that freedom into a system that can work sustainably.

[-] 2 points by Penston (80) 10 years ago

bullfrogma, you're absolutely correct with what you say about too much liberty. That's the cause of many of the problems facing the West today - too many rights have been shifted towards the private sector. If too many rights belong to the public sector, then you have the kinds of problems that the Soviet Union had.

What Buddha said about balance is correct. If the string of an instrument is too tight, the string will break. If it's too loose, it won't play.

Prosperity is found in having a balance of rights. Monopolies can only exist if rights are unbalanced, whether it's in the direction of the public sector (such as government owned telecoms companies) or the private sector (such as banks who create money out of thin air).

[-] -2 points by bullfrogma (448) 10 years ago

Nice, that string metaphor is good. I get pretty fed up with political language because all of it is so loaded, you never really know how someone's going to interpret it, like babel. So much labeling yet people are so varied.

[-] -2 points by flip (7101) 10 years ago

yes you can create rules that will make capitalism less onerous but the basic idea is not healthy for humans. private ownership is the main point of capitalism. that means one man (or a group of wealthy men - a corporation) can own the lake (or all the land) in my town. if they decide to sell the water (or all the food - that I helped to grow) to china (or even the next state or county) to make more money then how would that look. read history and notice how often people starve when there is plenty of food - we could start with American today but maybe Ireland and south America would be easier for you to deal with. I am sure you can design rules that will mitigate these effects (and rules I would agree with and vote for) but capitalism is the problem

[-] 1 points by Penston (80) 10 years ago

Historically, U.S. agriculture thrived under capitalism because people were given a share of the land (for free) and could enjoy the rewards of their own labour. I remember a commentary which was written by a British officer in the 1770's which said that Americans had yellow teeth because of the huge quantities of bread their women baked.

Up until the 1750's, there was no unemployment in the colonies, even though they'd always been capitalist. It wasn't until the monetary system was reformed in 1751 and again in 1764 that hardship appeared because the power to create money was taken away from Americans and there wasn't enough currency in circulation to sustain the economy.


Capitalism is not the problem. Democracy is absolutely not the problem. The rules which shape them have changed and have become a problem.

[-] 0 points by flip (7101) 10 years ago

well I imagine you will be not surprised to hear I have a slightly different version of the history of the 1700's - indentured servitude and slavery and the murder of Indians - read howard zinn. then maybe read "the first American revolution" - I think that is the name. but you do not address what I wrote. private ownership of the means of production (and life). plain and simple - what do you do when the owner of the lake ships the water to Arizona since they will pay a higher price (note what is happening around the great lakes). or ships the factory (the whole thing not just the jobs) to china since he can make more profit. or what about shipping food out of the country when the population is starving. now lets bring it to today - what about the African dying from diseases that can be cured with simple and cheap medications while the drug companies spend billions of hair loss remedies (I could use one by the way!) or botox! answer that shit not 1750 farmers in new england

[-] 4 points by Penston (80) 10 years ago

flip, I did address what you said about the owner shipping off the lake, etc. That's CAPITALISM IN AN EXTRACTIVE ENVIRONMENT. In other words, the rules allow the vast majority of the wealth to flow to a narrow elite.

In the mid-1800's, Australians discovered gold in the state of Victoria. The government at the time debated as to whether they should sell the rights to private enterprises or sell licenses to anyone who wanted to prospect for gold. They opted to allow the public share in the wealth and benefit from their own hard work rather than allow a corporate monopoly to direct the majority of the wealth to its owners. The population of the state tripled. That was CAPITALISM IN AN INCLUSIVE ENVIRONMENT. Apply that to your lake analogy.

You are correct that the U.S. was not completely inclusive, yet it did offer more freedom than virtually anywhere else on Earth. Slavery was prevalent in the south, and it's no accident that the southern states are relatively poorer than their northern neighbours - they had an extractive environment which stifled innovation and the creation of free enterprise.

As for Africans dying from easily preventable disease; that's another case of people living in an extractive environment. Colonialism did a great deal of harm by creating formal socio-economic structures which served the rulers at the expense of the people. When the Europeans left, those structures remained. They were able to extract wealth by setting up corporations which were supposed to benefit local producers, but were governed by rules which allowed them to take so much money out of the corporations that there was nothing left to benefit the community. You see, the problem is the rules and not the platform that sits on top of them.

[-] 0 points by flip (7101) 10 years ago

the rule is that I own the food or the water and can sell it to the highest bidder. now when you are starving what rule would you look to help you? I would look to a pitchfork - do you understand that reference?

[-] 3 points by Penston (80) 10 years ago

Do you own all of the food and all of the water in the area? If so, it sounds like the symptoms of an extractive environment, which is perfectly aligned with what I've been saying.

In an inclusive environment, the rules would prevent you from being allowed to take complete ownership (antitrust laws) so that everyone else can have a fair shot at prosperity.

[-] -2 points by flip (7101) 10 years ago

like I said you can design rules that will make capitalism more fair - lets make a rule that everyone makes the same amount of money - good rule? ok so now 4 (or 8 or 10 or whatever) people or companies own the water - or oil or land on which to grow food and china will pay more for it. what rule does the population look to then. keep in mind that the rules say the ceo must maximize profit so he must sell the food to china and watch his fellow citizens starve. good rule, maximizing profit?

[-] 2 points by Penston (80) 10 years ago

There are laws to prevent certain products from being exported or from allowing foreign companies to take over domestic ones.


I don't believe that price fixing or forcing everyone to have the same salary are good ideas.

[-] 2 points by flip (7101) 10 years ago

first of all I am a capitalist. I teach tennis and have had my own (very small) business for 40 years. I do agree that very strong laws could make capitalism work for most and i would be for that system. we can talk about the rules that should be put in place but it is a bit of a fantasy no? Sweden and Denmark are good models but still you have one man (or a few) making decisions on how and where to invest etc. we could make rules that would make the world look like adam smiths town of bakers and barbers and small shop keepers and I would be for that but how do you deal with ge or DuPont and big companies like that. workers ownership - now we are not capitalistic anymore - right? as to economic development - all of the developed countries used trade barriers to protect young industry - read economic history - I can probably get you some good info but no time now. just look at the u.s. - we were exporting furs and trees while britian had advanced textiles. we protected the early textile industry until they could complete with britians.

[-] -2 points by flip (7101) 10 years ago

as I said you can make laws that will gut capitalism - trade barriers we might call them. that is how the u.s. developed as did really all developed countries. but that is not true capitalism. when I own the food and the government tells me who I can and cannot sell I to not we have central planning. don't you listen to kudlow? as I said from the start a real grassroots capitalism with very tight government control would be much better than what we have but it has never happened. Volvo threatens to move its plants to Russia for lower wages. that is the world we live in. Ireland exports food to England during the famine - that is the real history of capitalism not your made up small farmers in new England - living in harmony with nature and the Indians. don't care what Ludwig and Milton say the history of capitalism is exploitation and extraction to the point of the destruction of local populations and nature. the system (capitalism that is) is a mess and will always be.

[-] 3 points by Penston (80) 10 years ago

Are you saying that the U.S. developed because of trade barriers? If so, I'm interested in hearing more.

It sounds like you agree with me that laws can make capitalism work for the benefit of everyone and not just the elites. If you read what I've written earlier in other posts in this thread, I said that prosperity is found in balance. The laws should not be so strict as to prevent people from engaging in commerce and they should not be so loose as to allow them to do whatever they want and exploit people.

You, like most other people, are so used to capitalism in an extractive environment that you think that capitalism is the root cause. However, if the laws can make it work better, then it isn't the root cause - the laws are.

[-] -2 points by bullfrogma (448) 10 years ago

Right now capitalism is the problem because there is no democracy (a result from having too little before). Without that democracy capitalism is nothing but liberty, and because of that someone will definitely take over and create a self defending monopoly. Might will always be Right in that arena.

[-] 2 points by nazihunter (215) 10 years ago

Where will the after party after party be held?

[-] 1 points by Axis116 (63) 10 years ago

"Your party is over Wall St."--The After party.

This is so good! Jump all over me for saying this if you want, but I have read nothing as powerful, as direct, as beautiful, and as fierce as the Manifesto and the Platform, since reading the preamble to the constitution.

There is a beautiful clarity and wisdom in these words that have been written. Even if the "After Party" were to disappear tomorrow, what they/we(?) have written will live on. It will not disappear.

Holy One, Holy Ones...may there come the day when the people will be able to look to a future, that is not one of all this darkness, but one where HOPE is dreamed again.

Oh, Iconic Wall St., in all your myriad faces...your party IS over. The Party is Over! Hoka-Hey!


[-] 1 points by Axis116 (63) 10 years ago

Hey ZenDog...yes, there are and will be many things that need be done. Everyone should remember that no matter how important history is in our understanding of things...WE ARE NOT THE PRISONERS OF HISTORY!

[-] 1 points by Axis116 (63) 10 years ago

err...feeling dumb...that was the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence....


[-] 2 points by Axis116 (63) 10 years ago

...now ain't that a daisy...

[-] 4 points by GirlFriday (17435) 10 years ago

You're a daisy if you do..


[-] 3 points by GirlFriday (17435) 10 years ago

Good to see you, Zen.

[-] 3 points by Ache4Change (3340) 10 years ago

'If you run a mega bank, New York is a wonderful town - because for over a century, the Big Six banks and their leaders have dominated not just the U.S. banking industry, but American and global finance...' from - http://www.nationofchange.org/jp-morgan-jamie-dimon-1397396453 I do recall that you don't really like the 'NoC' but don't knock it DaisyDuke & read that piece pls. :) Never Give Up! Occupy Wall Street!



[-] 1 points by bubbawadd (3) 10 years ago

How will decisions be made? Please don’t give me some crap about a leaderless dynamic. How was the decision made to create a party? How was the name chosen? How would I make my voice heard if I joined the AP?

[-] 1 points by maluhdt (3) 10 years ago

Exactly Jim! The After Party happens when all the bars are closed and it is time to get sober, wake up in every sense and work together, as opposed to drinking your sorrow individually, getting drunk and in debt.

[-] 1 points by sundog (14) from Essex Fells, NJ 10 years ago

Its great, except you have chosen an unfortunate name. "After" what? Even though many of us know what you mean - 'after party' invokes what celebrities do after the Oscars, or when the bars close. You need to use words like these: empathy, strength, responsibility, freedom, fairness, the common good, the public, truth, justice, all-in-it-together, smart effective government

Please understand that words matter and choose wisely when you are naming something so important.

Regards, Jim