Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Political Organization Rather Than Political Party

Posted 2 years ago on June 15, 2012, 2:50 p.m. EST by LeoYo (5909)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

In my latest reply to a forum member http://occupywallst.org/forum/third-party-redux/#comment-763587 I have stated that

"In essence, what is needed is not another political party but a political organization that pushes for initiatives at the local level and at the state level in ballot initiative states while pushing for those same state level issues in the non-ballot initiative states and also for federal level issues in all states in the form of contractual terms for candidates to publicly sign to in a legal contract."

The political organization could simply be known as ACT or the ACT Organization with 'ACT' perhaps standing for 'Americans Cooperating Together'. Originally, I had conceived of voters composing contracts for candidates to sign but after doing a little more research into fraud and affidavits, it's become clear that it's actually an affidavit that's needed to hold a candidate accountable. Although it would be ideal for ACT to simply be a campaign of the PIRGs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Interest_Research_Group , an independent organization based upon the PIRG template might be the necessary alternative upon rejection by the PIRGs.

Of all the issues that I think Americans might be able to get behind in a united effort, I think that the push for the peoples' right of initiative at all levels of government and the push for public state banks http://occupywallst.org/forum/free-democracy-amendment/ would hold the most promise in being understood and pursued for the establishment of a democracy in America and the eventual creation of a Union Reserve Bank to replace the Federal Reserve Bank. Attention simply needs to be drawn to the fact that a representative democracy that operates above the revocation of initiatives is a tyranny http://occupywallst.org/forum/none-are-more-hopelessly-enslaved-than-those-who-f/ while a national governmental banking institution owned by private interests is fascism http://occupywallst.org/forum/free-democracy-amendment/#comment-751508 .

A secondary component of ACT could be support for the creation of worker-owned cooperatives through crowdfunding. This would require a Cooperative Employment Service that would assess the skills of the unemployed individuals to patronize it and match them with a suggested cooperative business plan. Upon acceptance or rejection of the plan for an alternative plan, the Cooperative Employment Service would facilitate the crowdfunding of the new cooperative business. Of course, each municipality of cooperative communities should have their own branch of a nationwide Cooperative Credit Union to handle both cooperative and personal accounts. With the Cooperative Employment Service, cooperatives, and Cooperative Credit Union established, imagine what would happen nationwide if the unemployed of each city were to be consistantly channeled into either newly or already established worker-owner cooperatives.

Overall, the purpose of ACT would be activism through initiatives and candidate affidavits.

Your thoughts on all of this?

51 Comments

51 Comments


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

It makes sense, meaning politicians work for the people, so why not draw up a contract stating what work they should perform on behalf of the people who elect them.

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5909) 2 years ago

Was that a rhetorical question or were you addressing that to me specifically? I'm assuming it was rhetorical but if it was specific, each voting district will have to come up with their own contract addressing their common interests. A lease agreement can serve as a template to be modified into the needed contract as it will contain much of the needed language and format. Of course, a local attorney or a sympathetic judge will be required at some point to look over the contract to make sure it's capable of fulfilling its intended purpose.

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

Sorry, not really a question at all. I probably should have said - the idea makes practical sense - a logical approach to stopping our elected officials from running amok once they get elected.

[-] 1 points by HempTwister (667) from Little Rock, AR 2 years ago

"http://www.solidarityeconomy.net/2012/01/04/structural-reform-the-case-for-public-state-banks/"

How about a federal program to fund the workers in closing factories to buy their workplace and keep it open.

http://www.rebuildthedream.com/blog/2012/03/09/american-dream-2-0-can-worker-owned-coops-end-poverty/

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5909) 2 years ago

A federal program would be great. However, my aim is to try to come up with ways that people can achieve things on their own. If they can do it on their own, federal aid becomes an additional support to a winning strategy.

[-] 2 points by HempTwister (667) from Little Rock, AR 2 years ago

It might take money. Could we get some of those near zero interest loans from the Fed? ;p

[-] 2 points by LeoYo (5909) 2 years ago

Are you aware of crowdfunding?

[-] -3 points by salta (-1104) 2 years ago

cow funding? taxpayers pay enough for the vacations and upkeep of ms obama.

[-] 2 points by LeoYo (5909) 2 years ago

What the hell are you talking about???

[-] -3 points by salta (-1104) 2 years ago

michelle obama, the first cow .

[-] 2 points by LeoYo (5909) 2 years ago

What do taxpayers and Michelle Obama have to do with crowdfunding???

[-] -3 points by salta (-1104) 2 years ago

well,..................mich is cow and all by herslf she's a crowd.

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5909) 2 years ago

Do you even know what crowdfunding is???

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by HempTwister (667) from Little Rock, AR 2 years ago

Love the public state banks idea. North Dakota has had this since 1919.

http://www.solidarityeconomy.net/2012/01/04/structural-reform-the-case-for-public-state-banks/

[-] 1 points by HempTwister (667) from Little Rock, AR 2 years ago

peoples' right of initiative at all levels of government" I am skeptical. This has been a disaster on some states. California. In Oregon and Colorado they have regular attacks by the right wing using this tool. The Founders hashed this out pretty well. Federalist Papers. Basically it gives the majority the power to step all over minorities. Like the gay thing in California.

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5909) 2 years ago

Through judicial review, the judiciary is supposed to prevent democratic tyranny by prohibiting any violation of constitutional rights.

[-] 1 points by HempTwister (667) from Little Rock, AR 2 years ago

Have you noticed that Judicial Revue is not in the constitution? Big snit with the founders. Marbury vs Madison. The one thing that Newt Gingrich and Thom Hartmann agree on. They say it was an outrageous power grab. I tend to agree.

[-] 1 points by HempTwister (667) from Little Rock, AR 2 years ago

"contractual terms for candidates to publicly sign to in a legal contract." I love this. Been trying to get some traction on it just to know who to vote for in local elections. Like the infamous Grover Norquist pledge.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Sure. What initiatives should we include in our new political organization?

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5909) 2 years ago

Whatever initiatives that can be agreed upon. Here's a couple of lists composed of 10 and 4 suggestions http://occupywallst.org/forum/free-democracy-amendment/.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

They sound great. Item # 2 sounds like no taxes. I don't quite understand it. Care to clarify for this unejumacated layman.

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5909) 2 years ago

The prohibition of direct taxation allows people to be free. An income tax is a direct tax that taxes a person's inherent right to provide for themselves, making their own labor a property of the state. A property tax is a direct tax that taxes a person's property, making it the property of the state from which the 'owner' is actually leasing. If you don't pay the tax, you don't keep the property. So, it's not really yours. Prohibiting direct taxation simply means that only indirect taxes will be permited. This includes such things as excise taxes, sales tax, tariffs. This is how the federal government had been mainly funded prior to the 16th Amendment and the Revenue Act of 1913. Prior to this, a federal direct tax would have had to have been apportioned equally among the states.

Clause #2 allows for voluntary direct taxes for the funding of social welfare services such as universal health care. This way, those who want it can participate in its funding while those who don't want it don't have to participate in its funding and will be ineligible for it. This keeps the budgets for such services protected from being slashed by those opposed to such services.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

And if people decide they don't want healthcare, do not participate in the tax then they get sick and can't afford health services. what happens to that person?

[-] 0 points by LeoYo (5909) 2 years ago

They always have the option of opting in to the voluntary tax thereby immediately becoming eligible. However, upon opting in under those conditions, they will not be able to opt out until the cost of the services used on their behalf have been paid back.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Sounds like most people will just opt out until they need a service. That would be the cost effective approach for the individual. Maybe some details need to be worked out but it sounds very promising. Me I'd like to tax the wealthy up the %ss. They've benefitted offof our labor long enough. About time they struggled like the rest of us!

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5909) 2 years ago

It, along with any other social welfare services, would be what the people make it. If the majority of liberal minded people choose not to fund it until they need it, it will start out very small and conservative minded people will chuckle with "we told you so" on their breaths. On the other hand, when conservative minded people get sick and can no longer afford to pay privately, they will be mighty glad for the option of public health care. It will be what the American people make it to be.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Not likely there will money for any services if people have an option to pay. But great potential without a doubt and i support in principal if some details can be worked out.

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5909) 2 years ago

Well, as far as a political organization is concerned, I believe that gnomunny, DKAtoday, and perhaps Endgame have recently decided to unite their efforts to see what can be accomplished.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Good luck I would probably support what you guys come up with. As long it doesn't benefit the 1% who have lived off the labor of the rest of us all time.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Who are you? Are you anti Pres Obama? Do you have some problem with the great and powerful Jart? Why are you so hostile and offensive? I haven't done anything to you. You are hurting my feelings. And it is very bad Karma! "instant karmas gonna getcha" "gonna slap you right in the face" Lennon

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (24970) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Don't sound like a democrat to me. You are probably confused.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (24970) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Being a Jeffersonian and not considering yourself to be a democrat.

Does that mean you own a string of laundromats?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Well do you have the opportunity Jeff?

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Why? You wanna beat me up? Do you think that will silence me? Silly rabbit. Didn't we do this dance already?

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

More threats! You think you can take me? But your not man enough to give me your real name huh?

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

Political office holders already take an oath of office, which they chuckle through then discard on their way back to their seats. Why would a another legal contract bind them any more than an oath of office, which is a legal contract?

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5909) 2 years ago

An oath of office is a formality pertaining to general commitments to the public. A legal contract is written with specific terms between two parties to be legally enforced. If an elected official breaks a contract with a specific party of people who have upheld their end of the contract by supporting that official's election, and that contract was worded to ensure that its violation would constitute fraud, the people can hold the official legally accountable in court. If, as might be expected, the court dismisses the case thereby denying the people their legal right to hold the fraudulent violator of a legal contract accountable, there would be no doubt as to the unreformable corruption of the system and the need of the people to engage in radical action for a due respect of their rights.

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

I agree, but current oaths of office carry a criminal charge of perjury if violated. I haven't seen any public officials charged with perjury--that is lying under oath.

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5909) 2 years ago

A written contract takes it to a whole new level with the specifics of the terms being written but more importantly, the involvement of the people. It's the involvement of the people who insist upon a contract to hold an elected official accountable that makes the difference. Such involvement carries over into insisting that the official be held accountable in court, and when it is dismissed, such involvement carries over into taking radical action. The contract is a catalyst for facilitating voter involvement in holding public officials accountable. Right now, people complain about government unaccountability but are not involved in pursuing government accountability. The contract facilitates such involvement for voters who are serious about change.

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

The idea is fine with me. Literally anything that makes politicians actually serve the interests of their constituents sounds fine with me. Right now, most politicians ignore the best interests of the American working class and pursue their own agenda, which, of course, is in the best interest of the ruling class.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

I saw a San Diego city council member spoke at OWS Marty Emerald

[-] 0 points by HempTwister (667) from Little Rock, AR 2 years ago

Hell, I say let's co-opt both major parties. Run our people in the primaries on both sides. Then show up in force and set the agenda and and choose the candidates. It is not the system that is corrupt. It is the people in it.

Occupy the system.

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5909) 2 years ago

I was just thinking about this last night, that is, having plants in both parties who would run for office and agree to candidate contracts thereby putting social pressure on the other candidates to comply. I don't think that such an approach would actually be done but it was just a thought.

[-] 1 points by HempTwister (667) from Little Rock, AR 2 years ago

"having plants in both parties" If you have enough plants then they are not plants. The party is us. The party is the people who show up. Just like a GA. Own the parties. Occupy the parties. This is what Democracy looks like.

But it might not be kewl. Being the power rather than the protest. But power is sexy, too. Very damned sexy.

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5909) 2 years ago

So what kind of numbers are you looking at for pulling something like that off?

[-] 1 points by HempTwister (667) from Little Rock, AR 2 years ago

The Paulies can do it.

"In Massachusetts, Paul’s Liberty Slate swept the Republican caucuses in April, stealing delegate spots that were expected to go to Romney’s friends and allies, whom he had selected. "

http://articles.boston.com/2012-06-24/metro/32379941_1_delegates-and-alternate-delegates-republican-caucuses-state-caucuses

[-] 2 points by LeoYo (5909) 2 years ago

Well, one good thing about the article is that it lead me to research affidavits and realize that it's an affidavit, not a contract, that's needed for applying to candidates.

[-] 1 points by HempTwister (667) from Little Rock, AR 2 years ago

Ooh, keep working on that stuff. I would settle this being THE litmus test.

This is what we need to get the power we need to get the Equal Opportunity we all want.

http://movetoamend.org/

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5909) 2 years ago

I've recently posted this thread http://occupywallst.org/forum/its-a-pyramid-damnit/ about GreenDems. Let me know what you think.

[-] 0 points by vvv0625 (-9) 2 years ago

You could not be more naive: The system IS corrupt. Both parties are OWNED by the global fascist elite and therefore cannot be co-opted, and all candidates are made puppets via corporate contributions. It's all part of one big corrupt Kleptocracy:

http://ldrlongdistancerider.com/images/Kleptocracy_and_You.jpg

[-] 1 points by HempTwister (667) from Little Rock, AR 2 years ago

Problem with the word system. Technically it is not corrupt. "They" legalized it. A system is like you computer hardware. Data would be like the people. Just change the people and the "system" is fine.

cor·rupt/kəˈrəpt/ Adjective:
Having or showing a willingness to act dishonestly in return for money or personal gain.