Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: On the Issue of Voting and Co-option

Posted 2 years ago on May 15, 2012, 5:31 p.m. EST by shooz (17656)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Here's an official opinion piece on the subject.

Please do vote.

Please don't consider an alliance a co-option.

PS: It's more than OK to vote for liberals, but don't expect an OWS slate just yet.......:) As it will take mare than just few good Democrats.

http://occupiedmedia.us/2012/05/a-few-good-democrats-are-not-enough/

73 Comments

73 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 7 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

"Please don't consider an alliance a co-option"

This should be drilled in the heads of all Occupiers.

We can still keep our principles and still form alliances with others that adopt our principles. Like i've been saying, we need to be careful not to turn Occupy into an exclusive club.

[-] 7 points by shooz (17656) 2 years ago

It's been very hard to get that point across to some on this forum....:)

[-] 0 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago

That's because so many people here want to turn this forum into a pro Obama forum.

[-] 7 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

I really don't see that. What I see is people trying to make sure the overwhelmingly greater danger to the country can't get into power while the work OWS is doing to create change is going on.

It is a reaction, a push-back against those who are screaming "don't vote". "they are all the same" and "vote protest candidates" effectively repeating the tragedy of the left allowing Nixon to become president, and Nader losing Florida and New Hampshire for Gore, allowing Bush Jr. to become president instead.

OWS, is supposed to be non-partisan, separate from the system it opposes. That doesn't mean it takes a stance of promoting a strategy that helps Romney, which splitting the vote from the left effectively does. That stance, effected by a handful of zealots here must be opposed as much as attacks from the right must be. Both serve the interests of the 1%.

[-] 2 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago

Yes I understand the possible bad consequences of splitting the vote on the left, but there is also a consequence to turning this defiant revolution into a managelable, Common Cause-like struggle, and thereby rendering it impotent. I believe that we have the ability to reach out to people in the center-right, but we are more likely to lose that chance when we make this a partisan battle, and we get branded 'dis-gruntled lefties.' That is my concern.

As i said to BW, i just think that people could be doing more for this movement by bringing down a casserole to their local occupiers/protesters, or better yet to take part in a protest themselves....than to be pushing canidates. Our struggle is huge. If we are going to be successful, it will come from being recalcitrant to the illegitimacy of the ruling elite, or in other words, 'people out in the streets,' and possibly getting arrested for peaceful civil disobedience. I go to NYC, and i see defiant people. I come here, and I see people talking about elections. It is quite the contrast. That is not to say that pressure should not be put on this corrupt system every way possible, only that the main thrust has to be defiant, and that is what i would like to see more of here, not promoting canidates. And yes even if that means not having the better of the two canidates elected. This is my true feeling, and i know it is not shared by many people here. So i guess i am suspect too now.

[-] 7 points by factsrfun (8689) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

The biggest danger I see is being deflected from the core purpose of addressing the wealth inequality and how we change the nation. I see no way of including center right people without accepting they're absolute position on taxes and on any other attack on what they see as freedom but is really just the freedom to do as you want with your money. I see people talk about getting the money out of government or stopping the wars, while both of these are good things they do not address wealth and power of money in our lives, the 1% will “let” us do almost anything but that. So yes I see only one way forward, but it is based on all I see and hear. I spend several hours per day doing the best I can to raise these issues in ways that anyone can understand, I know that there is a need for more detailed work, but as a nation we need to change the way we think before we can change the way we live. I just want to get rid of all the GOP so I (and democracy) have a chance to live long enough to see that change.

[-] 2 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago

We will have to disagree, not because I don't understand though. To me, if we make this a partisan struggle, we may well win the battle, and lose the war. Many of us here including me have had to put aside some differences for the greater good of this movement. Those people in the middle, and a little to the right are reachable, and would be willing to do the same thing, and we need them because not even all the left will be jumping in with us.

I do believe also that educating people to what our commom problems are, corruption, the rule of law, and neoliberalism is important. Part of that process too should be to convince them how skewed the corporate-owned media is....and convincing them this is not about left-right, but instead about right-wrong. That is a line that i use quite often both here and in NYC, while conversing with people on the outside, at the Occupy Town Square pop-ups that i help out with. I also very rarely hear the words 'Obama', or 'Romney' spoken when talking to people in the movement.

[-] 3 points by factsrfun (8689) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

It could be we do have a very different view of what needs to be done, if we emerges with a system that continues to allow the wealthy to use debt to place the nation in their debt for generations, well I really don't care whose scorecard is getting filled out at the bank, in other words the corruption means little to me compared to larger 50 year trend we have been on. Rules will be written, people will find ways around them, we may be able to make it marginally better for investors, I know I got out a decade ago, no way to tell what was going on anymore, but that seems a goal not really that far reaching, the debt and what it really means is the biggie. So yeah taxes are a bigger deal with me than regs. The rule of law suffers because we allow money to buy more than it should. For neoliberalism I will have to reach for my thesaurus, but if your general point is that there are problems when people are not what they seem, why pick on liberals? Isn’t that a common flaw?

PS if we lose this battle the war could be over.

[-] 0 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago

Damn, I just had my reply to you wiped out. I think that we do have a different view on the scope of the problem, and hence the solutions. We are in a world-wide struggle. Some of what we have been experiencing here, other people have experienced a lifetime, and to a much harsher degree. We are in a struggle that encompasses the world.. People want a new paradigm in which we deal with each other, and our problems.

Our problems are inter-related, the wars....the enviroment...the economy..how we treat each other, and our civil liberties. Things have reached a crisis point, and unless we find big solutions, and take care of these problems, one or more of these things could sink us. I am very concerned with the big picture.

It' morning and that is not a good time for me, so finally I will say we need to have an accountable system where there are rules or regs in place to protect the most vulnerable in society from the most powerful, and have clear consequences for those that break those rules. We also have to come out of this remembering, it is only through eternal vigilance on our part will we keep this from happening again, and again.

If we lose the mechanism for winning the war, the batlle won't matter.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (8689) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

The problems you describe stem from the concentration of wealth, today we have a number of people on the planet with personal wealth measured in the 10’s of billions a decade ago there were fewer and a decade before that even fewer. To build these fortures the work product of many people had to be collected together, in that process much pain was suffered. The problem has gotten so bad that we have begun to feel it in America. You might notice I was not among the first here, I did not get interested till I heard people on MSNBC talk about wealth inequality and be accused of class warfare, but instead of shutting up like they were supposed to do they kept talking when I saw that I thought maybe after watching this for thirty years just maybe some other people see it too now. So I came here to see if there were any now understood the danger we are in. If we miss this chance to address the main problem the hard one that they will fight us like hell on, then this chance will be wasted I fear. If we allow the message to be watered down to one of “protecting” the weak by writing a few new rules but we do nothing about wealth. What will happen will the personal fortunes be in the 100’s of billion will there be any government left anywhere big enough to stand up to that power?

So in the end I come down to this, if we water down our message on wealth to reach across the aisle to the center right that’s the cooption that does lose me and sadden me because I doubt we get another chance for a very long time. But I’m still here and maybe someday I will hear a “founder” speak about wealth inequality, if we just allow that to grow then the rich will do what they want no matter what is done with the rules. What I am talking about is the total return of Monarchy soon they won’t even have to be shy about it.

[-] 0 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago

My concerns are your concerns, and then some. The differences we have is how we go about it. I believe the more that you try to make this a dem vs. repub campaign, the more hurtful it is to this movement. This struggle is a righteous one, to return to the rule of law, and to have representatve democracy. By constantly promoting dems on here, you just sully this movement, and will cause it to become impotent. Whatever good you think it is doing, it in effect is also dimming the fires of this revolution. As far as voting, you can rest assured I will not be voting for Romney, but I will definitely vote my conscience.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8689) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I assume your position is that by speaking so poorly of the GOP, I am doing a dem vs. repub thing, that is a fair point, it is hard to have watched the silde of the GOP into what iy is today to the point that even common sense is posin to them and there are lots of people saying this today, I may have seen it coming a bit sooner than most, I admit I do see this awaking of the wealth issue the one shot we have, did you see the list I posted from Reich? I used the word election so maybe that's why no nibbles, i'll give it some thought, look for postings, and whatnot

[-] 0 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago

Everything is inter-related to the wealth issue, hence that is not the only issue here. For me this is more about having a return to the rule of law, and having a democracy/republic that is representative of the people.

There are many moderate repubs out there that we have the chance to get on our side. They are not all nut jobs. By your bashing away at them, we lessen our chance of recruiting them to join us in this struggle. The more this turns into another stupid little dems vs. repubs fight, the more our chances of success fall.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8689) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

If you will be satisfied with some rules changes you might get some republicans as long as you don't go after the money, but then nothings been done, at most it goes to sleep and gets stronger, but we should get a few more years got of America if we can get even that done, so I'll keep watching for a bit, damn shame about the Monarchy coming back and all, I thought democracy might have a shot, I just see what I see don’t mean I’m right was wrong before, not usually when I see it this clearly, after all we kind of got here because Obama wanted to reach across the aisle, it is

[-] 6 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

I agree with you completely.

There is no substitute for direct action, for defiance, for refusing to accept the illegitimacy of the system in terms of its representation of human concerns.

Speaking fro myself, I talk about the elections only because I read others talking about destructive boycotts and third party votes that play into the hands of republicans, who in turn tend to vote in unison. And I respond to Obama bashing without a peep about what the republicans are doing, as if he is a King ruling in a power vacuum.

Ideally, this site should only be about OWS issues, not party politics. It should be about direct action, proposals for change, ideas, history, theory, etc.

But when others pipe in with party politics, and simultaneously claiming they are simply being good little anarchists, they are being destructively hypocritical and willfully ignorant, and I respond as forcefully as I can.

[-] 1 points by anarkette (3) 2 years ago

Ideally, this site should only be about OWS issues, not party politics. It should be about direct action, proposals for change, ideas, history, theory, etc.

Unfortunately, there are no moderators here.

[-] 0 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago

Good, I'm happy to hear that. I just don't think this is the place to promote party politics with the specific goal of crushing the repubs. As I said, there are many moderate repubs we can get on our side. And at some point we are going to have to heal. We do not need vindictive party politics to add to the years of it that we have had. Instead our anger should be directed at the whole fucking corrupt system that both parties propagated.

[-] 1 points by gnomunny (5804) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

When they call you a troll, just ignore them. It's a word being used far too often around here.

[-] 3 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago

Thanks, I have big shoulders.

[-] 0 points by gnomunny (5804) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

I'm also in agreement with your fine comment. Agree completely.

[-] -3 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

You make a strong case full of all the right statistics and talking points. The premise supporting everything you said is predicated on making people believe that voting for Obama is voting against the 1%. Ironic then, how you omit the fact that Obama serves the 1%. That he is every bit a Goldman Sachs candidate.

[-] 5 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Did you bother to read the article?

Have you bothered to look at the republican agenda?

Yes, the system itself needs radical change, and that will take a great deal of time and effort. In the meantime drawing false analogies accomplishes exactly what the most destructive people in the country want.

You keep wanting to start a pissing contest in the name of OWS purity, but your position is NOT what OWS has ever been about. It is SEPARATE from party politics, not an advocacy for abstaining from voting or helping the republicans. It is not about helping the democrats either, it is OUTSIDE the realm of OWS altogether.

[-] -3 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

Yes. and yes. You drew the false analogy of saying Obama does not serve the 1%.

If my opinion feels like piss to you, then I suggest you move out of the way.

[-] 7 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

You are putting words in my mouth. OF COURSE Obama serves the 1% among others. But the other side serves the 0.01%, and NO others. It is a false equivalence.

What's more, you're suggesting that I move out of the way is NOT OWS's message, but yours. It is YOUR distortion about both OWS's position and mine that I object to. You, however, don't recognize either position clearly, yet have the false confidence that you do, and speak accurately about both.

I was an anarchist likely before your were even born. I lived it every day as part of an anarchist community for 7 years and still largely agree with its principles, though not with all of them. Anarchism is NOT in conflict with voting to prevent a deluge of right wing horror. I have no illusion that voting will solve the real problems in this country, but I know that the left not voting gives more power to the MOST EXTREME right wing destructive forces, nit simple a moderate right wing that would result in voting.

The real work is not the vote, the real allies are not the Democrats. But the real enemies are the republicans, and the real work will be made immeasurably harder, with more human suffering to deal with if they win.

[-] -3 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

Now my age (which is unknown to you) is an issue. Praise the ancient ones. Thanks oh grandfather from the really, really ancient times for your o'mighty wisdom...sheesh.

[-] 8 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

You can be as snotty as you want. I was not addressing your age but my experience as an anarchist. I literally put my very life on the line for 20 years organizing workers. What have you done? You post as if you alone have the anarchist chops to back up your pronouncements, and you don't. Not even close.

But good for you in ignoring the substance of my post and simply launching into your ad hominem crap. But since you missed it the first time, here's cut and paste of what I wrote above:

Anarchism is NOT in conflict with voting to prevent a deluge of right wing horror. I have no illusion that voting will solve the real problems in this country, but I know that the left not voting gives more power to the MOST EXTREME right wing destructive forces, not simply a moderate right wing that would result from voting.

The real work is not the vote, the real allies are not the Democrats. But the real enemies are the republicans, and the real work will be made immeasurably harder, with more human suffering to deal with if they win.

[-] -1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

First, my opinion, whether you agree with it or not, is every bit as valid as yours. If you want to tout your experience, then don't put it in a - "I was walking on anarchist water while your we're still in diapers, kiddo" - kind of way, and I won't get snotty in return.

Second, I clarified a point that you originally omitted. The fact that Obama serves the 1%. Which you then agreed with. So, exactly, how did I put words in your mouth, you hypocrite. I made no false equivalence and you know it, that is why you now have to move Romney into a whole other category.

Third, whoever said I was an anarchist? If being against authority run amok fucking up the world makes me an anarchist, then I guess I am. But I will defer to your knowledge on that, because I have not studied anarchy at all.

[-] 4 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

OWS is anarchist at its core. If you claim to speak for its goals, you should familiarize yourself with the concepts involved in its foundation.

I bring up Romney for one reason only: One can legitimately criticize Obama severely, (and I have, though not here lately given the onslaught) but by advocating not voting or voting for a third party that has no chance of winning, you are effectively strengthening Romney by default, and his record and that of his party must be addressed as well. If not, you are playing into the hands of those things HE represents. I don't like it any more than you do, but right now those are the only two choices that have an immediate effect on the people. The long term goals of OWS are not threatened by looking at the election and the two major parties realistically and SPECIFICALLY, rather than with a single broad brush.

OWS MUST remain non-partisan. It is a movement that is about replacing the sick system that we have now. If it participates directly, as a movement, in that system, co-option is inevitable. That, in my view, would be a tragedy.

But part of being non-partisan is not being active in splitting or diminishing the the vote on the left. It should not be involved in voter suppression, including that of guilting people not to vote. That is de facto partisan politics because it favors one party over another in the way that party politics is structured today.

The goals of OWS will be achieved only in the very long run. It will replace, and break through the empty shell of the system when it grows large enough and strong enough to do so. But keeping the effects of that system from hurting even greater numbers of people while OWS is growing is just as important as the final goal. Revolution is required, but so is preventing more people from getting hurt in the meantime, while the decades-long process of revolution is going on. If alleviating or preventing further suffering is not important, the revolution is as hollow and inhuman as the system it seeks to replace.

The need for activism does not present a false choice of being activist VERSUS voting. Indeed, activism should encourage ALL forms of being active, from taking to the streets, to occupying public spaces, to repurposing abandoned buildings and tracks of land for community needs, AND voting. ALL forms of peaceful activism are positive and necessary. It is not a question of either/or, but either/AND.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

I claim to speak for a person in the 99%.

I understand the two party system. That I have studied for the last six months and questioned it every which way but blue. In the end, you are logically right. But you are sentimentally wrong.

Braveheart could have done things different and not died at the end of the movie. But he chose to make a statement and he suffered the price. I feel more like that. Maybe I get a knife in my belly for standing up and saying enough is enough, but I'll be damned if I'm going to be shackled by the two party cuffs.

I feel no obligation to any party, they both do a great job of drowning my voice to begin with (edit: much like you are trying to do). In fact, I hope more people stand up to these bullies, because in the end, that is the only way I see real change occurring. I will vote, and it will be third party. That's my choice.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Reply to your post below.

Yes, I saw you mention that just a few minutes ago on another thread, and I think that's actually a plan.

And although I think Roemer is a true shill of the 1%, at least he's not a spoiler, and your strategy is sound.

Why the hell didn't you just say so in the first place?

As to my language, would it have been better to say near sighted, and being fact free? I'm a regular dude, too. I have worked hard all my life. My father was a truck mechanic and assistant butcher and after my parents divorced, my mother raised us by working as a seamstress and going on Welfare. I never had new clothing until I moved away from home and bought it for myself. I was lucky to have always loved reading, gotten a really good education, and after twenty years of being a waiter (and organized as many restaurants I worked in for the union, an activity for which I had contracts put out on my life) I was a teacher. (And a damned good one - Teacher of the year for my state in 1999!) And while I was a teacher, I still held down a second job as a waiter because my top salary was $300.00 per week with no pension, no, benefits, no health insurance.

I like precise language and precise thought. Sue me.

I won't harp on your other points, since they were apparently moot to begin with (Yup, "moot" is another "aristocratic" word! LOL)

Look, I'm fed up, too. And I'm in dire straights personally because of the recession, and because of the Reagan right wing policies BOTH parties have engaged in for the last 30 years.

But I AM afraid. I am afraid because I've seen the left abandon the democratic party before and the consequences were Nixon and Bush. I am afraid because of what i KNOW the republicans are planning to do, and if they succeed, it will make this administration look like Snow White. I DON'T claim voting for Obama is positive. I am only saying that it would hold back a tsunami of destruction we have never seen before. That's reason enough.

Is that a positive message? Hell, no! OWS is sending the positive message, and taking the positive actions. Voting effectively against the republicans only provides a little breathing space in which that can happen.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

Still working it through in my mind. The Roemer thing that is. I have to evaluate new information as it comes in. I wish you would have given me a better appraisal of the guy. But, I probably should not have expected better. He's just another psycho politician after all.

Why am I a dick about the language? Well, it ain't so much the language, baby, it's the tone. You can speak in Mr. Fantastic words until you make my head spin and it won't bother me. It is when you combine them with insulting me and calling me selfish for sticking up for what I believe in that I get defensive.

If you think I'm wrong. That is your prerogative. However, when someone tries to manipulate me and puts the guilt of the entire world on my shoulders and holds me personally responsible for all the evil in the world if I don't do what they say, all the while knowing nothing about me. Well, then you make it kind of fucking personal.

Like I said, I don't appreciate the enormous guilt trips or the fear tactics. They are demeaning to me as a human being. You don't know me well enough to pass that kind of judgment on me. If you don't agree with me, then simply disagree.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

My sentiments are that I want to prevent the unnecessary escalation of suffering of the people of this country. I am NOT pro-Obama. I am anti republican. What they have been trying to do, and what Romney has already done (and said) is about the most evil things I can imagine.

Voting third party might make you feel good about your ideology, but it will help make this country unbearable for the poor, for women for minorities, and for the middle class.

Your vote is your choice. But pretending that voting third party will do anything other than having a negative effect on the 99% is a refusal to connect cause and effect. It is acting essentially selfishly, putting your desire to make a statement over the desperate immediate needs of the people right now. My own conscience forces me to do what I don't want to: vote for someone who is at best a mixed bag, who is part of the status quo. But as much as I will hold my nose while pulling that lever, I know I will not be supporting massive change for the worse, and as soon as I walk out the door, I can and will still work for the real changes we both agree need to be made.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

You're one noble dude. You have shown me my selfish ways. I repent. Oh, I can't compete with your holier than thou aristocratic view.

You win. I will only vote for Obama. Please forgive me for ever trying to break out of this vicious two party cycle. You make me feel so guilty. Please, forgive me.

nope.....just kidding.....I don't buy it.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Reply to you post below.

Nice substitution of personal attack for substantive argument. It only demonstrates that there are myopic, unshakable myth based beliefs on the left as well as on the right.

You have yet to show how any vote for a third party will effect anything positively. Instead, I am "holier than thou" and somehow "aristocratic" because I have pointed out that not only will it not effect positive change for our brothers and sisters, but will add to the harm.

But if calling names makes you feel better, like strengthening the republican party does, by all means, have at it. Neither reason, pragmatism, nor compassion seem to have any place in your consciousness anyway, it seems. Your purity takes precedence over all of it.

Its a shame, because otherwise you are an asset to OWS. That you would act to hasten its demise by making its (and everyone else's) most virulent enemies stronger, is just plain sad.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

Again, with the aristocratic language. Myopic, myth based beliefs. Look, I'm a regular dude, get it? You think I don't want positive results. Do you think I'm somehow self-destructive. Well, maybe a little. I am certainly fed up. I ask Obama 2012 will accomplish what? End war in Afghanistan. No, don't think so. You can lay the guilt on thick. But I won't respond to fear or guilt tactics. They mean nothing to me. I am not afraid because it is just life after all. And I have nothing to feel guilty about, I try my ass off to be a good person in a world of psychos bent on ruling the world. I can't claim voting third party is positive, but you can't really lay out any positives from voting for Obama, you can only lay out the negatives of making me feel fear and shame if Romney wins. What is the positive message in that?

But, I am always trying to keep an open mind. So, I will give you an alternative. I could adopt this strategy. Tell me what you think about it?

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/05/buddy-roemer-the-anti-spoiler/257101/

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by shooz (17656) 2 years ago

I think at this point it's more important in the States and have said so.

Other than that, I am decidedly anti (R)epelican't.

[-] -1 points by ronniepaul2012 (214) 2 years ago

And you are one of the folks who has made it difficult for non Obama/DNC fans to feel welcome. Geez

[-] 7 points by friendlyopposition (574) 2 years ago

Yes. Vote.

I agree.

[-] 6 points by shooz (17656) 2 years ago

I though it was nice to read a sensible official piece on the subject, considering the amount of BS that's been going through the forum lately.

[-] 7 points by friendlyopposition (574) 2 years ago

I don't agree with everything in the article, but I do agree with you. VOTE! I also wish we could break up the 2 party system, but I don't have any ideas about how to really make that happen.

[-] 6 points by factsrfun (8689) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

you make one of them so small you can "drown it in a bathtub"

[-] 6 points by shooz (17656) 2 years ago

As dumb as it can feel to vote sometimes, it's even dumber not to......:)

[-] 5 points by dragon13 (12) 2 years ago

We have to vote. Making our voices heard within the system is important- the system is horrible, but it does have a lot of power and ways to get better noticed. Choosing candidates who are the most likely to not fail utterly is the best we can do. I say we ourselves should run for office!

[-] 2 points by friendlyopposition (574) 2 years ago

Isn't it sad that we always find ourselves picking the lesser of two evils in these races? I can't remember the last time I was truly excited about a candidate. I know many left-leaning people really got pumped up about Obama - it was actually kind of cool to see people so energized by a candidate. I'm not trying to start a whole pro-con Obama debate- but I don't think the guy ever really lived up to the hype. Unfortunate.

[-] 6 points by factsrfun (8689) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I do 2000, it was Gore.

[-] -2 points by occupybrains (30) 2 years ago

As long as occupy stays where it's founder's motivation was- ending the two party system, then it will come when the time is right.

[-] 6 points by shooz (17656) 2 years ago

Anyone bother to read this?

Or has there been too many trolls around?

[-] 3 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago

That link seems to back up the position that Occupy should not turn into a partisan movement, which I agree with.

[-] 2 points by shooz (17656) 2 years ago

Indeed, and at the same time, there are no qualms with alliance with liberal entities, when the aims are the same.

Alliance, is not co-option.

[-] 3 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago

Nor would there be any 'qualms' with people on th the right who were with affinity groups concerned about civil liberties. Some of those people too might overlook the rest of our agenda here to achieve what they believe is the greater good. It is just when you get political parties involved in your struggle, you get the same old left/right arguments that we have all become so disgusted with.

[-] 1 points by shooz (17656) 2 years ago

As many times in my life that I have tried to shed the term "leftist", I have been unable to do so, as there are those who will call me a fool for describing myself as a forwardist.

Is it the vested interests that have made it impossible to shed the "left, right" paradigm?

[-] 1 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago

I don't like to consider myself in any political category. The "vested interests" have set up this faux system which makes us think that we have a democratic process. It keeps us busy, to divert our attention away from the real issues that benefit them. Anything that concerns money, and power of the one per cent is predetermined, and then the spin begins, to convince us how great it is, when it is really mor garbage for us.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

"Occupy should recruit and run candidates, so the left has champions in Congress and can credibly threaten less ideologically aligned Democrats. According to this logic, it doesn’t matter if Occupy does this itself or essentially outsources the job to our progressive allies—the point is to find ways to elect more good Democrats."

Hell yeah. I'm sick of these 1970's style republicans posing as democrats.

Bob Kerrey is a democrat in my state. Lee Terry is a republican in my state. What do they have in common? Deregulating Wall Street and helping to create the financial collapse in 2008 with their support for the Financial Modernization Act.

[-] 1 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

anarkette is clearly a troll (joined today)that has multiple accounts that he uses to upvote himself. Hes basically going around posting the exact opposite of what Occupy SHOULD be doing. Idiot.

[-] 1 points by shooz (17656) 2 years ago

I'm thinking you just got included.

You might be a liberal if you find your karma descending at an incredible rate.

[-] 1 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

anarkette is clearly a troll (joined today)that has multiple accounts that he uses to upvote himself. Hes basically going around posting the exact opposite of what Occupy SHOULD be doing. Idiot.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

Vote for a few good democrats? define good. Is a democrat backed by Wall Street good or bad?

[-] 2 points by shooz (17656) 2 years ago

Read the piece, it's from the Occupied WallStreet Journal.

[-] 2 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

I read the piece. It agrees with my assessment that the system is broke and changing the player will not result in changing the system. Are they talking about local voting for a few good democrats? Why not progressives? Does everything have to be viewed through the label democrat? Is this an unwritten law that I must obey?

[-] 5 points by shooz (17656) 2 years ago

Here's the relevant quote.

"My generation doesn’t put all, or even most, of the blame for this state of affairs on President Obama. We don’t hate the player, so much as we hate the game. I believe Democrats are more humane than Republicans because they care more about the lives of gays, women and people of color. I also believe everyone should vote, because not voting would hurt people that I care about. That being said, we won’t just win by getting new players—we need to change the game. The system is fundamentally incapable of healing itself."

Make of it, what you will, but many on this forum are from an older generation.

[-] 4 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

In New York, there are actually many independent parties. One, for example, is the Working Peoples Party (it is a progressive pro-labor, quasi-socialist party, and I voted for them often) , and although they are separate from the democrats, their candidates are listed under the democratic party label at the voting booth. They are a third party that really has some effectiveness as a result.

The flip side of that is also true. The mayor of New York was once a Democrat, then Republican, then Independent. In none of those incarnations was he ever a progressive, including the independent one.

There are no progressives among the current republican party. And in a system in which two parties alone have real chance of winning state and national elections, the progressives, if there are any left, run under the umbrella of the democrats. It's not about the label, it's about the constituency and the funding.

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by Justoneof99 (80) 2 years ago

ANARCHY? Really? If that is what your about, grow up or get the hell out of OWS! OWS is about "empowering real people to create real change from the bottom up."

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Anarchists vote all the time, and they always have. HIstorically and practically you are in error.

Nor has OWS ever decided it was specifically about anarco-syndicalism. It has instead been about replacing capitalism, but it has never said with what. Rather the anarchist structure of OWS was designed to foster a consensual series of decisions in the future. DAvid Graeber himself said he has no idea about what system should replace capitalism or what it will look like, but that OWS is about the process of finding out.

[-] 2 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

Right, OWS isn't ponying some sort of dogmatic blueprint for the future, and OWS has never taken a stance against voting (or nothing that could be reasonably construed in this way). Anyway dude, on some days we connect the dots in awkward ways (it's just human I guess), so when someone makes a statement that seems grossly inconsistent with the facts, I figure in most cases, they'll come to their senses (once their dopamine levels come down a bit) :)

[-] 2 points by shooz (17656) 2 years ago

Take a lesson from Wisconsin and Occupy your State house.

Support your local unions as well.

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by shooz (17656) 2 years ago

I strongly disagree.

Alliances with unions have been a cornerstone.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

Try as they will .... they won't succeed my friend. Take heart, goodness always wins.

Solidarity

[-] 0 points by shooz (17656) 2 years ago

Yeah "right" there have been NO alliances with unions.

Just who do you think you are?

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Troll alert!

[-] 1 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

anarkette, like some of the other members on this board you are living in a dream world.

If Occupy does not get involved with running candidates and building alliances, and actually showing political power we are wasting our time. We become a movement with huge potential, to a bunch of toothless complainers. Wake the hell up. "omg lets occupy everything!!1" only works if we forcing our goals politically.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

this person is not for real. this is a pretend supporter trying to make Occupy look silly. I mean edible food forest....sheesh.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/a-female-anarchist-who-quite-ows-why-an-edible-foo/

[-] 3 points by Justoneof99 (80) 2 years ago

thank goodness. There is a small fringe of anarchist want-to-bes, as seen in Seattle and Cleveland, who are destroying what the hard working 99% built.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

Maybe the earliest members of OWS supported anarcho syndicalism, but I think maybe a revised, updated version of anarchism is emerging. Syndicalism was always (in my view at least) among the best versions of anarchism (of which there are many), but we have to keep in mind, anarchism is a very old idea (and most of its intellectual output dates back to the late 19th/early 20th century). The closest we get to modern anarchist intellectuals are people like Chomsky, Graeber, maybe even Naomi Klein, etc. But its core ideas, participatory democracy, a social orientation (that leaves no one behind), etc., are ideas that (I think) will resonate with most people (once they have unadulterated exposure to these ideas).