Posted 2 years ago on Nov. 28, 2011, 3:50 p.m. EST by aeturnus
from Robbinsville, NC
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
If the occupy movement does indeed decide to create a political party, I believe maybe we should go for a greater risk. I am willing to support the notion of a political party without candidates. We can simply run for office as a collective entity under the name Occupy Wall Street, or maybe, for those wishing to get involved at a government level, Occupy The Government. Our interests in solidarity and continuing to battle corporate elitism must be retained, but then we can operate the country without the specific imbalances that a single leader tends to bring. We could have leaders at specific occupy assemblies beneath the government levels that are collectively supported through consensus and other things, but the collective entity as a whole decides the ultimate say. This, to me, would amount to true freedom without the major worries of corporate control.
I suspect we could begin this at local levels with protests at colleges and in housing arrangements to simply get rid of landlords and principals, replacing them with simply the collective decision-making of the communities wishing to be present there. People living in apartment complexes could wish to actively get involved and advocate the ousting of their landlords, and thus make for a better place to live for everyone in the complex. Such landlords, or whoever is in a current authoritarian position, can either agree to join or simply leave. The power-hungry individuals will certainly object to such moves, but we, as a united organization, can no longer afford to allow their measures to be taken into consideration. If we advocate taking a stand such as this, not only will we be seen as certainly doing something but also possibly getting more people involved.
I suspect a similar idea can be advocated the the government levels. End the notion of single-person candidates and replace them with a collective response. With the use of technology and mail, we can easily address issues amongst each other. We can use concensus and other decision-making ideas to generate results for congressional and state acts. Local assemblies can collaborate on local and larger issues, with more national assemblies passing down more bills to be voted upon while our results for whether or not a bill can be passed goes up. I suspect we can find the necessary means to get people involved as best as possible. It is likely true that everyone need not be involved, but at least many ought to be. I would rather have a bill sent to my house or to my e-mail and have the personal right to vote on it, rather than leaving such work up to people in the state levels that we elect. When such a bill is passed, either at local or national levels, it is done so on behalf of OWS and not a specific person.
One of the most interestings ideas about this is that it would nearly eliminate the need to buy candidates. A corporate entity might be able to buy a politician, but such an entity can never buy an organization. Corporate lobbying efforts will also be slowly forced to dismantle, as we hardly ever cave in to their desires for greed and plunder. We will thus be our own lobbyists, with the need for less and less bills, as we begin to find the necessary means to share our wealth and resources amongst one another. We will be in control of our own lives, of our own interests, and of our own businesses. Corporations will find it much harder to outsource, for they will have to answer to us. Many corporations may even be forced to restructure themselves as they find it harder to compete with the new ways of living we are offering. Congress may even begin to wither away, as the need for them is going to be dramatically reduced.
No Gods, No Masters, No Leaders, No Bosses, No Candidates, Our Government ...