Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: We have a Party

Posted 2 years ago on April 6, 2012, 9:42 p.m. EST by RedJazz43 (2757)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

We have a party. We don't need Republicans or Democrats. Our party is Occupy.

174 Comments

174 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 8 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3213) from New York, NY 2 years ago

What is the Occupy Party platform?

[-] 2 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

What is the platform of the Republican and Democratic Parties? Who the fuck knows? To the extent that they actually exist they are virtually impossible to find and they really don't matter anyway since candidates are in no way mandated to follow them.

[-] 2 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3213) from New York, NY 2 years ago

They both have clearly defined platforms you can easily find at their website. The only reason why most of it does not get implemented is because they don't have a dictatorship once they get elected. The Dems have to compromise with the Reps and vice versa.

[-] 4 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

Whether on not the platforms of the major parties are easily accessible that is a relatively new phenomenon and a direct consequence of the internet age. The fact remains that candidates are not bound to them and it is not a matter of their compromise when they win office. The fact is no presidential candidate and very few candidates for lower office ever even campaign on the platform of their party. Platforms are essentially sops thrown to party activists to keep them active in their 1% party.

I'm not against platforms, but writing and approving a platform is far from the first thing a party necessarily does or needs to do, and it is certainly not a precondition to being a party. As a party Occupy already has a minimum program, its anti-corporatism. As a party that seeks to be as broad as possible such a minimum program is sufficent as one of the characteristics of a long platform is that by definition each plank excludes someone and we want to be inclusive, not exclusive. The only people we want to exclude are the 1% and we don't even want to exclude them if they agree with oour anticorporatism. I'm loyalty to Occupy. Occupy is my party.

[-] 2 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3213) from New York, NY 2 years ago

"The fact remains that candidates are not bound to them and it is not a matter of their compromise when they win office"

I completely disagree. If we had a system where the president had the power to implement everything he wants, this country would be completely different. Obama would have implemented completely different policies. He would implement every single thing on the democrat party platform.

You still haven't explained what the occupy party platform is! What policies would an occupy candidate want to implement?

.

"if they agree with oour anticorporatism"

What does that mean? Does it mean you are against companies becoming large? How would we produce complex products that require economies of scale, like cars, without large companies?

Or does it mean you are against the legal protections of corporations? So you think it is fair for someone who owns a single Exxon stock to be personally liable for an Exxon oil spill? If someone owns a share of stock in a bank and that bank goes under, that person should have to lose their home in order to meet the debts of the bank? Wouldn't that put an end to investing?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6569) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

If your point is that there is no difference, you are a lair, and people should take that into account any time they read your stuff.

[-] 0 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

I never said that there was no difference between the Democratic and Republican parties. The differences are vast and profound, though they are mostly about style and the social composition of the two institutions. Of course there is more.

But what interests and concerns me is not the differences between the two parties (which again are not insignificant) but rather their similarities, which to me are about much more fundamental questions, on which I disagree with both parties. While the working class and the labor movement remains captive of the Democratic Party (there are few working people in the Republican Party and that is a big difference) the fact is the Democratic Party is not a labor party, but like the Republican Party it is a capitalist party. Like the Republican Party the Democratic Party does not seek to consolidate its base, but rather to keep its various constituencies separate and distinct from each other least they actually begin to organized and overthrow the basic premises of the party. Like the Republican Party the Democratic Party is closely bonded to the two party system and there are countless examples on the local and state level of the Republican and Democratic Party uniting in an effort to defeat successful and effective third party efforts at that level. Like the Republican Party the Democratic Party is an ultimate defender of the existing state and the status quo of corporate rule of the economy as evidenced by the systematic repression of local Occupy movements by municipal Democratic administrations. And since 1947 both the Democratic and Republican parties have endorsed an imperial bipartisan foreign policy first engineered by the Democratic Truman administration, making any effort to change American foreign policy in any fundamental way all but impossible at the electoral level.

So yes, there are profound differences between the Democratic and Republican parties, but what concerns me, what disturbs me, where I part company with both parties is on the basis of their similarities which are quite fundamental, and not there differences which are admittedly vast.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6569) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

what a bunch of bullshit

1sealyon

aflockofdoofi2

BLOWCHUNKS

DanielBarton

Dell

Demian

F350

Farmerbrown

Ironboltbruce

JuanFenito

MsStacy

po6059

Rebdem

RedJazz43

slammersworldwillnotbecensored

VantagePoint250624

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Hey, thanks for the list. I suggest "aburrunderyourblanket" for the next alias.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (6569) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I added based on your rec, haven't met him/her myself and no posts, sometimes that's troll sign

[-] 0 points by HapteMikael (162) 2 years ago

You are such an obvious troll and scumbag. Any intelligent person that spends any amount time reading this forums knows what you are.

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

I was guessing jart

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6569) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Hey I looked this guy up, something may have flown right over this rookie’s head, but if I offended in words or tone, it may have been my intent, but it was certainly my bad.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6569) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Hey, I don't know this jart guy, but don't go blaming others for my stuff, I make it all on my own.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6569) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Here people can judge for themselves:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/search/?q=user%3Afactsrfun

I would put your stuff up but you haven’t posted anything, typical for a troll.

1sealyon

aburrunderyourblanket

aflockofdoofi2

BLOWCHUNKS

DanielBarton

Dell

Demian

F350

Farmerbrown

HapteMikael

Ironboltbruce

JuanFenito

MsStacy

po6059

Rebdem

RedJazz43

slammersworldwillnotbecensored

VantagePoint250624

[-] 0 points by HapteMikael (162) 2 years ago

Actually no troll, typical troll behavior is posting thousands of divisive, distracting, and fallacious comments, labeling people liars, making faggoty " blacklists", divide and conquer etc... Keep running your mouth please, I have been on this forum since it's inception (with the same handle), and it's long since been taken over by those who have no concept, or are intentionally hijacking the Occupy movement with partisan BS and Fascist apologism. Like I said, ANY intelligent person on this forum (and they are dwindling fast) knows what you are. You are pathetic.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6569) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

As a vigorous debate develops, new and strong ideas will rise and stand against the tide, if we are to win, the movement will take notice.

I invite you to bring yours here, if you have any, I’m here most any day, and would like to hear them, please make your case, all are welcome here.

[-] 0 points by HapteMikael (162) 2 years ago

Yes, I'm sure you would like that, however the internet is for masturbation (the verbal form of which you seem to excel at). I prefer to share my ideas with my true brothers and sisters in the street, or on park benches, or sometimes, in a jail cell or the back of paddy wagons. As I've said more than once, you are an apologist, and a supporter of fascists, why would I share anything with you please?

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

I am so shamed

[-] 0 points by HapteMikael (162) 2 years ago

That's odd, can't remember directing any vitriol your way. Maybe there is some explanation for the shame you feel?

[-] 1 points by brochomsky (208) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

"Democrats believe that government should be honest, transparent, and participatory. For too long, lobbyists and special interests have held sway behind closed doors, and Americans have become skeptical that the voices of ordinary people are being heard. The Obama Administration has taken unprecedented steps to restore the public’s faith in government by opening up the process of governing."

The talking points they have painted on their websites are simply that: talking points. There is no heart or conviction in these words. History has shown that the Democratic Party is just as open to lobbyists and opaque governance.

Lyndon B Johnson was perfectly fine with lying to the world about the Gulf of Tonkin incident. Obama is perfectly fine with silencing groups like WikiLeaks.

And even though the Republicans are against big government, they increase the spending of the Government and the bounds of it. The Republican Party under Lincoln sought to "preserve the union" and denied many states the right of secession, suggesting that the power of the Federal government supersedes that of the states.

This just goes to show how malleable and meaningless so-called "platforms" are.

[-] 1 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3213) from New York, NY 2 years ago

I'm not arguing that political parties are perfect. But they clearly stand for different things and the only reason why they do not fully implement their platform is because they do not have the power to do that. They have to compromise with the other party.

If we had a government system of democratic centralism where the winning president gets to fully implement their plan, Obama's presidency would be completely different.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (26523) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

You are talking a set-up for horror at the hands of an individual. The real cure for government is the complete involvement by the people for the people. Own the system as it was designed to be.

[-] 1 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3213) from New York, NY 2 years ago

I didn't design the system, so I don't know why I should own it. I would design a completely different system. I think the system is terrible. It was designed 250 years ago by a couple of white slave owners while we were still an agrarian country.

It should have no bearing on the modern world.

The people are already plenty involved. Enough people vote to give us a large enough sample of how people would vote if we had a 100% turnout.

So I don't know what you think would change by more participation. The system is designed to cause gridlock. It is designed to make it extremely difficult to change anything, no matter how many people are involved. So that is what we have.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (26523) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Current Voting is not participating, it is choosing the lesser of evils. Participating in government as citizens is about giving them direction and letting them know without a doubt when they are fucking-up and how they are fucking-up. To own the process is to set and run the agenda they are to follow.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

Republicon Platform: In inequality and greed we trust. Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1% Americans have been watching protests against oppressive regimes that concentrate massive wealth in the hands of an elite few. Yet in our own democracy, 1 percent of the people take nearly a quarter of the nation’s income—an inequality even the wealthy will come to regret.

http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/05/top-one-percent-201105

Dems: 99% ~ We the People

[-] 4 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

The Democratic Party currently holds one branch of the state and half of another. A Democratic President is Commander in Chief of American imperialism and responible for administering American bases and American wars all over the world. This American President got more financial contributions and bigger financial contributions forom Wall Street (which is to say the 1%) than any previous candidate in history.

There's more, but most important to those of us in Occupy is the fact that most of the municipal administrations that have evicted our encampments have been Democratic administrations and even when they have not been they have recieved advice from a Justice Department, an FBI and the Department of Homeland Security all under the control of a Democratic Administration.

I am not a Republican. I am not a Democrat. I am loyal to Occupy. Occupy is my party.

[-] 0 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

Your loyalty to Occupy will show when you advise people to Vote to block one single more Republicon from gaining office than already exists, anything else would be sabotage. Every political party has flaws, everything has flaws, perfection does not exist. Listing flaws says nothing. Republicon flaws are much more detrimental to democracy than Democratic flaws, it's just a fact, an obvious fact. Occupy is a protest movement, not a party. To lead impressionable people into thinking Occupy is a better choice than the Democratic Party is cruel and malicious misinformation. When people pay attention and participate in the DP it responds. When people turn their back on our political system, Cons take over. What we have is a system that is suffering from neglect by the People and exploited by the corrupt. It was made for us and runs better with us, our political system needs us. Demonstrate with Occupy and take control of our democracy through the Dems. Believing Cons and Dems are the same is an old Republicon trick.

Unite and Win! Unite and Win! 2010 Never EVER Again!!

Register and Vote! Register and Vote! "We the 1%" NOT What They Wrote!!

[-] 2 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

Personally I'm writing in Occupy. That's a personal choice. I take no position on what other people choose to do as individuals. I love Occupy. I am loyal to Occupy. But I also recognize that it is a tiny movement and whatever it might choose to do electorally would be inconsequential and only reveal our weakness as a movement. That aside, as a movement Occupy has decided not to endorse any candidate or any other party and I don't think any individual or group of individuals are in a position to change that course. That is even if I wanted to do what you think is so important to do, I don't think I or anyone else could get Occupy as a movement to do it.

[-] 0 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

You are obviously confused.

Occupy wakes Wakes Americans up to the inequality crime.

The solution is to get the people who advocated the crime out of our Gov. They are Cons.

Don't vote to get the out, they take over even more. Simple as pie.

Jazzy, do whatever you want, except advocating defeat.

Register and vote!

[-] 2 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

I'm 69 years old and I've been an active radical for nearly 50 years. If I'm confused, I've had the same confused perspective for all my adult life and I've argued that perspective in radical social movements all my life, sometimes successfully, sometimes not. Occupy is great. Fuck corporations. Fuck capitalism. Fuck the state. I don't advocate defeat. I advocate overthrowing the whole fucking system.

[-] 0 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

May i ask why you hate capitalism

I agree with you on everything else though

[-] 3 points by brochomsky (208) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

Must someone love capitalism?

[-] 0 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

No but it is an honest question

[-] 2 points by brochomsky (208) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

"What we have is a state run of, by and for the 1% masquerading as a democracy. I have no desire to drop out of society. I wish to change it fundamentally and democratically by overthowing the 1% and their state."

I think he already answered the question in several other posts.

[-] 0 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

ok little disappointing

i think we have a fake system of capitalism that is modified by the government so it is not true. I think if we had true capitalism many more people would be happy

[-] 2 points by flip (7039) 2 years ago

you might want to take a look at the truely functioning capitalistic system in the 1800's and early 1900's - boom and bust - true capitalism cannot work and the capitalists know that. which is why after the depression fdr and his capitalist friends saved the system

[-] 1 points by brochomsky (208) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

This is in response to your last response to me:

I agree that sometimes the government inhibits progress, but what do you make of the fact that GM and Ford intentionally hindered their productions so that gas mileage would lag behind current technology--making it so we would buy more gas.

What do you make of the fact that genetically altered crops can be patented, so that Monsanto can patent their soybean crops (genetically manufactured to die after use so they can then boost production) and sew independent farmers for "using" their product. Most often these lawsuits are fraudulent but force independent farmers to close anyway because of legal fees.

I agree that government inhibits progress--but no more or less than Corporations do. And if we both agree that Capitalism isn't the best that can be but rather just what we currently have, why don't we simply work toward something that is better?

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

i do work hard for a new system. i dont know what generation your from but im in college and we see through this bullshit so we will be better. Im not worried about what we do because i know its moving to appease us. In ten years this world wont be like it ever has. There will be no such thing as an energy crisis or anything. Science just needs it time

[-] 1 points by brochomsky (208) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

As Marx pointed out, Capitalism is the only economic system where crises is cause by OVERproduction. Try explaining that to starving people in Third world countries: "The economic crises in the developed world arose because we developed way too much. Oops." I think if we had true Capitalism, we'd see growth run out of control. We also wouldn't have nice things like minimum wage and safety regulations.

Though I agree with you we'd be happier without government intervention. I think a system without such an overbearing government and without Capitalism would be best.

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

Yes over production does kill us all. Capitalism may not be the best but it is the best we have at the moment.

To the starving kids in third world countries all i can say is over throw your war lords your dictators. We give so much of our excess to these countries but instead of reaching the starving population it is taken by the few and kept. We have genetically engineered crops to grow in Africa's harsh environments but the government refuses to let it be brought into their lands.

This is why i hate government they block the science field of everything. We could have a perfect world where energy problems would be gone but due to government we don't

[-] 0 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

I was engaged in hyperbole. Most of the time I try to be objective and emotionally detached about this sort of thing. I really don't think the problem is corrupt corporate leaders. Indeed I think ethical corporate leaders are just as big a problem. It's not that they are bad people. It is simply that their material interests are antithetical to those of the vast majority.

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

yes you are right some of them are self centered people. I think it is a small group of people who just want power so the people become government officials and they bend the law to help their friends and family. The people who run the business are looking out for one thing there business and so they gladly accept the gift of free money. This i think turns into a viscous cycle of what we have now crony capitalism.

[-] 2 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

Personally, I don't think crony capitalism is the problem. I think the real problem is plain old fashioned perfectly ethical capitalism. The problem is not that the 1% are bad or evil people (though some undoubtedly are) the point is, good or bad, their material interests are at odds with the material interests of the vast majority.

[-] 2 points by ARod1993 (2420) 2 years ago

Capitalism as a whole is definitely salvageable, and we do have to admit that it does get one whole set of things right; the profit motive isn't going to go away entirely anytime soon, and I don't think we really want it to do so because I don't know of anything that might replace it on a national scale. Such a thing may indeed exist, but as long as we cannot identify it we cannot structure our society in a manner that fosters it and therefore its existence is a moot point if we're going to talk application rather than theory. Greed is not good, but in a particular set of situations it can in fact be quite useful.

The problem with the system we currently have is less about which "ism" we choose to call it than it is about how we choose to implement it. I'd argue that a strictly top-down, hierarchical form of capitalism is going to be no more efficient or functional or mindful of the needs of the people in general than any other authoritarian system. I say this because capitalism is not much different than any other system of government in which decision-making is delegated upward; if the chain of command goes upward only and doesn't loop back around at some point the group at the top will eventually divorce itself enough from the people at large that it starts making decisions that work for its members at the expense of everyone else.

I would argue that American capitalism has not always been as authoritarian as it is now, and in fact we managed to have almost a loop of command instead of a chain for some time; as much as individual corporations still had strong hierarchies there were institutions at multiple levels such as labor unions representing the people near the bottom with enough clout to hold management accountable, and the fact that most companies' workers and consumers were the same people meant that wages and benefits had to be high enough that even low-level employees could afford a given company's product at any given time. Finally, a strong public sector and robust corporate taxes ensured that private firms reinvested in the nation as a whole and kept corporate overhead to reasonable levels.

The past thirty or so years has seen the stripping away of many of the old channels of accountability that forced upper management and CEOs to support their communities and country. With the advent of outsourcing it became possible for companies to completely separate the markets in which they shopped for employees from the markets in which they sold their products, meaning that they could treat employees in other countries how they chose. Further, they were able to put the squeeze on their employees over here, breaking unions and extorting all kinds of unacceptable concessions from workers with variations on the line "If you won't do it for this much I can find an Asian or a Mexican who will do it for five percent of that."

A massive spate of deregulation over the same time frame actively slashed corporate accountability to the people of this nation, and at the same time rulings like Buckley v. Valeo and Citizens United allowed large corporations more power over the same people (when you have only two parties and the populace is unfamiliar enough with the issues that whoever has the most (expensive) ad campaigns wins, then the ability to throw money at races matters. Massive lowering of corporate tax rates and the establishment of all kinds of obscure deductions and loopholes made matters worse because it dramatically slashed the amount of investment that corporations were required to put into the country and communities in which they operate, further putting the people out in the cold.

Finally, the massive long-term trend of chopping up and privatizing enterprises that the government used to be responsible has left private industry in general without any long-term competition to keep them honest. We watched the UK try this under Margaret Thatcher with the privatization of British Rail, and instead of providing the increased efficiency she was promised she wound up paying massively increased subsidies for less frequent, less extensive, poorer-quality service. If it didn't work with the BR then, then what makes people think it will work with Medicare or the post office now?

What we need to focus on isn't getting rid of capitalism but on finding means of ensuring the people at the top of the corporate heap adequately invest in and take care of employee, community, and country (which means restoring all of the old checks and balances on out-of-control corporate behavior). We need stronger unions, real protectionism, money out of elections, public works and infrastructure overhauls on a national scale, and a restored public sector to provide fair competition in industries that naturally tend toward monopoly or oligopoly, and I firmly believe that such things can be implemented without compromising those parts of capitalism that benefit the people of the United States.

The natural long-term conclusion of such measures would be something that I can best describe as "community-run democratic capitalism," in which institutions such as banks and corporations continue to exist and prosper, but are owned outright by their communities, whether through municipal governments (which I would argue is possible but not the best way of doing things) or by reorganization of corporations and private firms into a more democratic model in which a company's employees are also its shareholders and its managers. That day will be a great one, but I'd say that it's something that can't really be rushed and is best left to evolve on its own. In the meantime, though, taking more conservative measures to restore the accountability of the top of the corporate food chain to the rest of us should have a strong positive effect on society in the medium and long term.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

Capitalism may be salvagable, but that presumes one would want to or more precisedly that presumes that Occupy as a movement wants to salvage capitalism which I do not think is at all the case. While Occupy is more accurately anti-corporate rather than anti-capitalist, that distinct is lost on many Occupy activists.

[-] 1 points by ARod1993 (2420) 2 years ago

I figured that would be a good idea because salvaging capitalism (although it would require a comprehensive, long-term overhaul of the way the United States does business both at home and abroad) would be far less scary as an undertaking to the general population than getting rid of capitalism or publicly espousing communism or anarchism. In the end, their philosophies and mine should lead to roughly the same end; my thinking is that doing it the way I espoused above should make the transition process much easier.

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

so if the were ethical and held a social contract it would be fine by you?

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

Of course not, and that is my point. Ethical or not the class interests of the 1% are antithetical to the class interests of the vast majority. It really doesn't matter whether they are good or bad as individuals. The point is there class interests and there class rule is not in the interest of the vast majority.

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

Ok ok i get that

so would you have no separation of classes

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

That analysis makes the business man victimized by the evil gov't official and is very counter intuitive to my perception. How about this? Those who want to be beneficial to their community go work for the government and find out that corporate money has gummed up the political process, and the only way to get shit done is to appease self serving, business interests. Though reality is probably a little different then both of us perceive. Just saying...

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

it is a combination of both. In my mention of this im am not saying that businessmen are innocent children no they know what they are doing. It is the iron triangle at work.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

I'll give you that. It does take two to tango.

[-] -1 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

Then move to a commune. We have a democratic society to run here.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

What we have is a state run of, by and for the 1% masquerading as a democracy. I have no desire to drop out of society. I wish to change it fundamentally and democratically by overthowing the 1% and their state.

[-] -2 points by Centerrightcountry (16) 2 years ago

Aka, your government check shows up on time. Without a mailbox, the checks stop too. LOL. Hippies smell.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

How about a world without money

[-] 1 points by Normalperson1 (119) from Indianapolis, IN 2 years ago

A world with out money means nothing. You then have a barter system. I need something done and you agree to do the job then we both agree what the exchange between us will be. Meaning I give you something for your labor and I get what I want done. You can then use the something to either get something you want from other person or keep and use it you self. Money is just a system that we all agree to use instead of the barter system and we set a value to it. It could be rocks or shells, But then a system has to be setup to keep someone from just making more because this makes the value of the money less. Today the government is just making money because IT CAN AND MAKING THE value less so things then cost more.

[-] 0 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

From each according to his ability to each according to his need. No barter. Democratic Communism.

[-] 1 points by Normalperson1 (119) from Indianapolis, IN 2 years ago

Yep that system is a failure. Just how many times will you try the same failed system before you understand that is can not work.

[-] -1 points by Centerrightcountry (16) 2 years ago

But your commune buddies will all run away and then you're left with yourself, just like happened to you in the 60's. See, people that produce figure out pretty fast when their shackled to people that don't. Then they leave.

[-] -1 points by Centerrightcountry (16) 2 years ago

Your world doesn't work. People still want to exchange, isn't that obvious? How could you be your age and not by now come to understand that as obvious?

You've gone through life with some really stupid ideas.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

I've been fighting the status quo, bourgeois conventions and insipid bureaucracy all my life, and I see no reason to quit now. People say that I look at least 10 years younger than I am, and that is probably because, despite the fact that I have virtually no material resources, I have spent my life in a wonderful struggle against the many injustices of our society and culture. On top of that, despite the fact that I was unable to provide much for them in terms of material luxuries, my kids really respect me.

[-] -1 points by Centerrightcountry (16) 2 years ago

Sure, they really respect you. I'm sure you get lots of pats on the head. Tell us again, dad, about getting stoned and sleeping in your car.

[-] -2 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

Then you have to start with where we are and with what we have at hand. BY THE WAY, where the fuck have you been?

The Republicons are wholly own by a rotten segment of the 1%. They have descended into a Cult and their Charlie Manson is that segment of the greed-addled 1%. They are really not a legitimate American political party, they are domestic terrorists.

Dems have to deal with them and have to get money to fight fire with fire. You can't wrestle pigs without getting dirty. The American electorate is stupid and ignorant and are busy trying to survive and watch Dancing With The Stars and football. They are oblivious. But Cons and Dems need their votes to get in office. [Cons just need to make it look that way so they can cheat their way in.] And we think they are both a bunch of assholes. Third parties would be great, if they had the right platform and could win. Cons are hopeless, Dems are redeemable. All Dems really need (And many don't need redemption, they are already great Progressive Liberals waiting for the people to wake up) is OUR INVOLVEMENT and support. YOU and many like YOU, sit back and BITCH without getting involved oblivious to what Dems go through. When we turn our backs on the political system, the Cons snatch it all up for themselves AND LAUGH BEHIND YOUR IGNORANT SMUG BACKS. And we true Dems have to watch in infuriating frustration as we lose and Cons win, and you idiots blame Dems. Just because you numbskulls think there is some perfect political party. There is no PERFECTION period in this world, and certainly not in a democracy. It's all compromise!!!! Lesser evils!!! Better or worse than the other!!!! Occupy may poop out some good politicians, that would be great!! But we don't have to reinvent the WHEEL, we have a fully established political party just waiting for the PEOPLE!!!! WAKE THE FUCK UP!!!!!!

[-] 3 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

I've been opposing the two parties of American capitalism for 50 years. The Democrat Obama is the Commander in Chief of American imperialism. It is municipal Democratic administrations that are evicting us and setting the cops against us with the help of a Justice Department, an FBI and a Department of Homeland Security controlled by a Democratic administration. Is that not true? Our security is in the streets fighting back against this bullshit, not in a voting booth where both parties are controlled by mega corporations and Wall Street. Obama got the greatest contribution from Wall Street of any candidate in history.

I'm not for perfection, I'm just for overthowing corporate power. I don't expect that to result in a utopia, but it will be a start, which voting for one corporate party after another year after year most certainly isn't. I don't understand why you are on this site. You are clearly hostile to Occupy.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

It is that kind of head in the sand (NON-INVOLVEMENT) that has us where we are today. You make the futile quest for perfection the enemy of the good. You are doing exactly what the Cons want. You are an oblivious (I hope) saboteur of real change. A progressive Typhoid Mary. Non involvement will only perpetuate the domination of an ideology that results in the valid complaints you list. Your quest to cleanse our government of corrupt influence is shared and noble. But you have to do it from and with what we have. You'll only waste your time and possibly others by avoiding the wonderful political system we have, which is suffering from neglect, what you are advocating more of. Laws and law enforcement is part of society. When we avoid the system, bad laws are passed by bad people. With our involvement good laws are passed, and so on. Don't encourage the very practice that has us where we are, we need more involvement!! Not Less!!! Keep your foolish ideas to yourself.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

Just because somebody hasn't been involved they way you think it appropriate to be involved doesn't mean they are uninvolved. It just means that they aren't involved they way you personally would like them to be. One of the most important roles that radicals have to play is to give liberals a program to water down.

[-] 1 points by Normalperson1 (119) from Indianapolis, IN 2 years ago

heh heh heh. A socialist attacking a socialist.

[-] -1 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

You are the Progressive Liberal Humanitarian Typhoid Mary!!!! Where a mask!!!

[-] 0 points by Centerrightcountry (16) 2 years ago

He probably tried that. But the commune failed when the people doing all the work left. He's been looking for new suckers ever since the 60's. LOL.

[-] 1 points by TheMisfit (48) 2 years ago

The Dem platform: Keep minorities on welfare, take in as much from the 1% while playing lip service to those in need, focus on social issues that do nothing to advance the American people and collect votes from those who depend on the government. Inequality is needed by both parties to retain power. Only the truly ignorant support either of the two parties.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

You are just full of shit. Only the truly ignorant wouldn't know that.

What do Republicons offer?

Allegiance to the rich and powerful, the 1%. And fuck everybody else.

Claiming Cons and Dems are the same is an old Con trick.

[-] 2 points by Rebdem (71) 2 years ago

I used to be a registered Democrat then i realized that after 40 years of ruling congress there still was poor and more poor than ever. So i left that party and became an Independent i vote for both sides more based on the individualistic personality of person than anything else. If they are for the poor why are are all the top dogs of the democratic party so rich. This fact bothers me and always has. So no i cant trust that platform anymore. That why i wish there was many parties to choose from since things are not black and white

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

Ur fulla sheet mo fo! TROLL!!

[-] 2 points by Rebdem (71) 2 years ago

No thats an honest opinion/story. It is true why are leaders so rich and promise money to people in the hopes of gain their vote.

[-] 1 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

Waste someone else's time.

Unite and Win! Unite and Win! 2010 Never EVER Again!!

[-] 1 points by Rebdem (71) 2 years ago

I see you refuse to open your eyes i am sorry

[-] 1 points by lancealotlink (147) 2 years ago

I have a platform ,D .My first order of business is to employ 14 million people to well paying government jobs.You can read the rest of my platform.at my website employmentforthe99.com.I am running as an independent.Although I dont have much financing at this point,I intend to knock every door in my district,and plus my district has five colleges in it.I am starting to gain a following even the libertarians support me.. I am running in a brand new district so its wide open race at this point I might be the best shot for occupy to get a Rep. in congress this election cycle. Of course you know that campaigns do need financing not anything great.I am trying to maybe raise about few hundred dollar so I can make some nice slimjims and flyers.I am also very friendly with your site also.

[-] 1 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3213) from New York, NY 2 years ago

How would you raise the $1 trillion per year to pay for those jobs?

And how did you get a libertarian to go for increasing the govt by $1 trillion per year?

[-] 1 points by lancealotlink (147) 2 years ago

Very simple I intend to demand the treasury print the money and then I would inact a price freeze on all goods and services for 5 years to control inflation.. Nixon did this in the 70'sand it was very sucessful until the fed shut the program down .Libertarians support me because we have an alliance I support Ron Paul and they will support my campaign.

[-] 1 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3213) from New York, NY 2 years ago

If you increase the money supply by $1 trillion, you have to increase the yearly production of the private sector by $1 trillion times whatever the money velocity is. Since all of these people are going to work for the govt, that is not going to happen.

After just 4 years, you would have to increase private production by ~$8 trillion. That is never going to happen.

If you fix prices to prevent inflation, that doesn't increase production. So all that will happen is you will have shortages in everything. People will have more money to spend than there are goods and services to buy.

You cannot print $1 trillion in new money per year. You have to pay for the program. The only way to do that is for govt to increase revenue by $1 trillion.

This is also something that goes against everything Paul stands for. Ron Paul libertarians, who want to end the fed because they think printing money is evil, are not going to support you if this is your idea.

[-] 1 points by lancealotlink (147) 2 years ago

okay I'm happy to reply. If we ended all tax loopholes, there's your trillion right there. I find it rather peculiar that the government can find $1 trillion a year to go on some little war jaunt in the Middle East. Or find a few trillion to bail out bankers and corporations.

But it's impossible for the US government to find $1 trillion more a year to bail out the American people that's BS.

You know I could think of 1 million reasons why I shouldn't run for Congress as you could probably think of 1 million reasons not to support me. And that's fine but I will say this I'm offering real change. For once I want people to go to the voting booth and say yeah I can finally go vote for someone who will actually improve my life and make it for the better.

Oh and BTW if you still don't believe that libertarians in my district support me just go to Facebook and see all the r3volution supporters I have. Thanks for the scrutiny. And I hope I can gain your support.

[-] 1 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3213) from New York, NY 2 years ago

"If we ended all tax loopholes, there's your trillion right there"

I would certainly support a candidate that wanted to make the government the employer of last resort and paid a living wage. But you can't just pull $1 trillion out of a hat.

You need a real plan for generating that much money.

Where is the math behind $1 trillion in loopholes?

In order to raise $1 trillion, you have to tax the economy an additional 6.6% on all income (including capital gains). I think you have to raise taxes. But you have to actually work out with real numbers how you are going to pay for your idea.

.

"I find it rather peculiar that the government can find $1 trillion a year to go on some little war jaunt in the Middle East."

The CBO says the cost is $140 billion per year, not $1 trillion. Even the far left who are critical of the war don't put the cost above $200 billion.

.

"Or find a few trillion to bail out bankers and corporations."

The bailout was in the billions not trillions. And that was loaned. So if it was "printed money" it only increased the money supply temporarily. As the loans got paid back, the money was taken back out of the money supply.

That is something completely different from permanently adding $1 trillion in new money to the economy every year.

.

"libertarians in my district support me"

I just find it hard to believe. Why would someone whose political goal is to eliminate the fed, stop the printing of money and reduce the govt to close to nothing support someone who wants to do the exact opposite of that: print more new money than anyone in history and increase the govt workforce by 400%?

[-] 0 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

Demand is right

You cant just print money to fix problems. This would actually increase the inflation rate making things harder for the US out side of our country

[-] 3 points by lancealotlink (147) 2 years ago

okay I will attempt to answer both of your questions . First of all you guys think like Republicans all you're concerned with is a budget you fail to see the forest from the trees .

Do you realize in this century will have to spend trillions improving our infrastructure buildings highways etc. etc.

And I think I've heard estimates as high as $82 trillion or more with inflation. So this money is going to be spent anyway right. So why not just spend it now all at once. Instead of spending it later when inflation will increase the cost.

What I mean is $20 trillion now instead of $82 trillion later.plus besides putting $1 trillion into the economy each year could be very helpful we could reinvest in a new middle class.and what you also fail to realize is by rebuilding our infrastructure increases the value of our treasury bonds.

This is not a new program as a matter of fact I got this program out of the old FDR playbook in the 30s called the WTA. Everyone was able to have a job that wanted and one. Plus great things were built such as the Hoover dam and the Golden gate Bridge.

I happen to believe in the American people I happen to believe that they can do great things for this country if given the opportunity.to deprive the American worker of a job is to say that you do not believe in the American worker you do not believe that he can do great things .

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6569) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

yes we will spend the money, we have to

The right wants us to cut taxes and borrow the money so their offspring can be Kings, and the left feel we should levy tax instead so we don't have to pay interest, now everyone may not agree that is the difference but that’s the way it seems to me.

[-] 0 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

i'm not gonna argue i don't agree with that at all but fine do what you want. I know your aren't in my district so i don't care. Good luck

[-] 2 points by lancealotlink (147) 2 years ago

you wanted candidate's.right well here I am in all my imperfections no one will ever have the perfect solution for our problems but at least I'm trying to come up with solutions .When I walk through my district. All I see is more and more homeless people every day. People who are only looking for the opportunity for work.people only looking for the opportunity to be to feed their children. Why do we have to wait or we this cruel to turn our back on our fellow American citizens why do we have to wait until the economy turns around . Thanks very much for your support all that you can offer me.

[-] -1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

i know so many people that go to places with a lot of homeless and hand out business card and applications to help them get a job. When he hands them out he hands out 200 or so then he waits at most he will get five back. He does more for that them then most people do in a year. The point of that story is not all of them want jobs or to be a functioning part of society. Being homeless messes with you mind a lot. But even if we can not help the present homeless we can prevent more from becoming homeless. That is what your platform should be. i applaud anyone that runs for office.

[-] 1 points by lancealotlink (147) 2 years ago

So if anyone asks you can say this is a movement that is a party that has candidates. employmentforthe99.com

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

cool thank you i will be looking forward to see why comes out of this. even if it is not a drastic change the small things will add up

[-] 1 points by lancealotlink (147) 2 years ago

Thanks for your support I will do the best I can.

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

yep that is all we can ask. Also just a note if you are elected please be civil and friendly. Be the better person

[Removed]

[-] 3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Let me know who's on the ballot........:)

[-] 1 points by nicknmu (1) from Marquette Township, MI 2 years ago

we need cohesion not separation or big government and the 1% will just keep winning.

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

Big government is not the problem. The nature of that government is.

The government should be bigger in terms of social programs, it should be bigger in terms of creating a single payer health care system, it should be bigger in terms of fully funding education. It should be bigger in terms of job creation. It should be bigger in terms of green energy investment. It should be bigger in terms of regulating the excesses of capitalism.

It should SMALLER in terms of the military, or subsidizing oil and coal corporations, of helping the wealthy get wealthier.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Tell that to our detractors. They are here and they do not listen to reason.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

The Republicans and the Democrats, the two big parties of the 1%, do NOTHING that genuine mass popular parties of the people should do or have typically done excepting run people for office. Occupy does EVERYTHING a real mass popular party of the people should do or have historically done, excepting run people for office. I am loyal to Occupy. Occupy is my party.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Until such a party exists, and strong alternatives arise, I will never vote for a candidate with an (R) after his name.

Although it is lesser in national candidates, there are still very real difference between the major parties in State elections.

The most obvious similarity on the national stage is support for Austrian based neo-liberal economic models..

That REEKS of libe(R)tarians.

[-] 2 points by trib (2) 2 years ago

You have got to be kidding me. Republican's and Democratic's are the same.

[-] 0 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

trib wrote: You have got to be kidding me. Republican's and Democratic's are the same.

I respond: Of course, and that is exactly my point. The ONLY viable alternative to the duopoly this election season is Occupy. That is why, whether or not it sees itself as a party, it is, nevertheless, my party, the party to which I am loyal

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Before we create an Occupy party, justify it's necessity. In fact justify any party. Why not be independent of all parties?

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

In the real world, legislation must be passed to effect real change. That means having people in office. That means political parties. Being independent is an advantage in terms of applying pressure from the outside, and is a valuable strategy, but without also having people on the inside who are willing to see the truth an independent opposition group is presenting, nothing will change. The Civil Rights movement made sure they not only demonstrated in the streets, but also had friends in Congress. That's how they got the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights act passed and ended Jim Crow laws.

[-] 0 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

I have yet to hear any compelling reasons to justify any party. They are nothing more than political gangs. Like the bloods and crips, red and blue, reps and dems. They group together for greater power and terrorize the rest.

Just because we grew up in this political neighborhood does not mean the gangs are necessary or that we must join them.

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

Ultimately, theoretically, sometime in the distant future, maybe political parties will have no power. Today they do.

If you want to be utterly ineffective, stay away from electing someone who can pass at least some laws you would like to see passed. If, on the other hand, you want to effect change, the simple reality, as dirty and corrupt as it is, is via political parties.

THe Christian Right began a strategy years ago to turn the country rightward. They started fielding local candidates who were completely aligned with them. Those local candidates, after holding local office, ran for state offices. They then became Congressmen and Senators. And in the last 30 years or so, they have forced the entire country to move to the right, including the Democrats.

The left has done nothing comparable. If it did, perhaps the Democratic party (or a third party) would genuinely represent the left again in the halls of power. Perhaps the working people of this country could have a real voice again. It is not as sexy a process as demonstrations on the streets (and I am not in any way discounting the value of that) but it is extremely effective. In the real world.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

^fails to realize the NEVER pass the ones we want, just screw us. But more than willing to keep hoping...

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

That's because we on the left haven't done the same kind of groundwork the right has done on the local and state levels. Instead of complaining about the results of the lack of effort, maybe it is time to start working at it.

[-] 2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Ive been part of three Dem campaigns in the last 8 yrs.

The party is corrupted from within.

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

So reform it! Corruption in politics has always existed, and always will, simply because those who seek office tend to crave power to begin with.

BUt you can't honestly assert that both parties are identical. There is too much that belies it.

And if the Democrats have moved farther to the right, then push them in the other direction. Simply abandoning the electoral process is letting the worst of the corrupting forces to hold sway.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

No one said Im abandoning anything. Im simply working with different parties and people now.

Gov is power, so yes, there is always corruption. But going with the same two parties for almost 100 years is insanity.

Time to start fresh. Scrap the tax code. Scrap the trade code. Scrap it all. Start fresh.

Anything else just gets you more corportism.

PS- corportism is not traditional right wing thinking.

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

Corporatism is indeed right wing. Anti-trust laws laws come from the left. Regulation comes from the left. Unfettered capitalism is the very foundation of the right wing. Do you think socialism or any other leftist philosophy is corporatist? Really? You are confusing party with left and right again.

I agree completely that we need at least a third party in this country. but not electing the only one that even has a chance as stemming the tide of right wing fascism, at least in the courts, WHILE building such a party tot eh point at which it becomes viable is utterly irresponsible. you keep setting up false choices. IT IS NOT EITHER/OR! Create a new party AND keep the hounds at bay while you are doing it. Allowing a Romney to decide who will replace Ginsburg when she retires in the next year or two is a pure abdication of responsibility, no matter how you choose to look at it.

The code needs scrapping, sure. But until you get people in who are willing and ABLE to do that, you don't allow those in who will skew it even FURTHER toward the 1%. Voting takes five minutes. That's how long it would tae to do your part in keeping Romney out. That's the amount of effort it would take. The rest of that day, and the rest of the YEAR and DECADE to come can be devoted to creating real alternatives.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Unfettered capitalism is the as much the opposite of corportism as socialism is.

You need to update your history trust busters too.

The Dem party is just as guitly as the R these days. They are funded by the 1%. They serve the 1%. Locals less than national, but national is taking over, hence the rise of corportism. HAve fun supporting criminals. Im not.

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

"HAve fun supporting criminals. Im not."

Yes you are, but you just won't see it. You're falsely equating the, though there is clearly overlap, as exactly identical, and helping insure that the worse of the two gets elected is indeed supporting criminals.

corporatism |ˈkôrp(ə)rəˌtizəm|

noun

the control of a state or organization by large interest groups.

Is that not the product of unfettered capitalism? Yup, sure is. It seem you need to do some updating. You don't even know there is a differenced between the right and left, and are blissfully unaware that OWS itself is a revolutionary, radically left organization.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

On a scale of 1 to 10 with 10 being legit and 1 being criminals, the Dems are a 2 and the R is a 1.

Have fun with that Bullshit. Ill check back with you in 4 more years and see how it worked out for you, endorsing the criminals.

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

Gee, and taking 5 minutes out of your life to make sure that a 2 gets into the white house instead of a 1 is a horrible thing to do.

That 1 point difference is the difference in the makeup of the federal courts, especially the Supreme Court. And that's significant enough to take those five minutes. The rest of the time can be used, and more effectively, to create a genuine opposition movement with real teeth.

Lok at the way the court has voted. 5/4 decisions in Citizen's united, women's rights against WallMart, invasive strip searches for (no joke) jaywalking, Arizona's public election funding laws, ...... the list goes on. That 5/4 split has been CONSISTENTLY along party lines. And the one party that wanted to protect rights, democracy, block the worst excesses of corrupting influence on elections, was not the one Romney belongs to.

How stacked with fascists do want see those courts? For LIFEtIME appointments? Ensure that doesn't happen, so activism has some room to grow. Otherwise, you are indeed making certain the criminals have a death grip, not only on you in the next four years, but your children and children's children's live as well.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

If you think they arent all bought out, and keeping it a close vote for less attention, then you havent been paying attention with has happened to all three branches.

The SP court isnt immune. Who appoints these people? Oh ya, the same ones that keep us VERY CLOSELY divided and always tend to lean on the side of fascism.

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

Reply to your post below:

You're joking, right? Do you really believe the Supreme Court and federal court judges sit around in a back room deciding how they will sell their decision to the public in order to maintain some conspiracy?

It is a close vote because there are 5 republicans conservatives on the court and 4 appointed by Democrats. The issue if to get more appointments by Democrats. It is simple math. If Romney wins, you can be sure the votes won't even be close: they will be 6 to 3, or even 7 to 2 depending on whether only Ginsbug retires or if she is joined by Breyer.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

When the courts decide to uphold Obamacare, which is completely unconstitutional, but is a huge payout for hte insurance companies, you may see then.

'Same reason why they will never overturn Roe vs Wade- Theres too much money in it.

By your logic, they should have done this already. They wont. Every decision they make takes the side of the big money. Follow the money is not a conspiracy. Its usually true.

[-] 0 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

One can choose to characterize Occupy as independent of all parties, I chose to see Occupy as my party or our party with those of use who agree with me. And I don;t think we have to "create" anything. We have already created it. Occupy is my party now and it doesn't have to do anything else or be anything else to be my party. My political loyalties are with Occupy. Occupy is my party.

[-] 3 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

"My political loyalties are with Occupy." Reps and Dems loyalty to their parties obscures the truth. Shouldn't our loyalty be to the truth?

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

The truth is a concept and of course our conceptual loyalties should be to the truth. Occupy is an institution. Most people think of it as a movement. I personally prefer to think of it as a party and as my conceptual loyalties are to the truth my institutional loyalties are to Occupy.

[-] 1 points by lancealotlink (147) 2 years ago

employmentforthe99.com

[-] 1 points by ikki6 (11) 2 years ago

a party to destroy your country, sounds great, you'll do it faster than your current government because you will do great running a country with a bunch of un-educated teenagers.

[-] 1 points by brochomsky (208) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

Most teenagers I know are more intelligent, more curious, more idealistic, and more optimistic than our congressmen. Perhaps I roll in enlightened circles and therefore have a warped perception of my generation as being quite capable people. However, I don't think the government is run by the most "educated" men.

Power is wasted on the old.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

I do not want to destroy the beautiful scenery of the United States or the physical infrastructure of its wonderful cities, what I do want to destroy is the state and the political and economic infrastructure of the 1%

[-] 0 points by ikki6 (11) 2 years ago

yeah, too bad they are your economic infrastructure, without them, you are a third world

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

Without them and with the growth of Occupy throughout the world we will have finally established genuine democracy. Contrary to the narrowness of your thinking, Occupy is an international movement, not a national movement. Our task is to transform the world, not any particular nation state.

[-] 1 points by ikki6 (11) 2 years ago

well, let me put it this way. You want to destroy the economic and political infrastructure of the people who pretty much make it so you can do what you do today. Without them, your technology, your education, your home, your food will be all but a dream. without them, you have no fuel, no power, no technology being produced. Are you prepared to go back and live like they did in the 1600s - 1900s again?

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

Ultimately a workers revolution would destroy not merely the economic infrastructure of capitalism, and not just capitalism, but economics itself because ultimately all that economics is is an explanation of how capitalism works. They (the capitalists) have taken untold millions that they never toiled to earn, but without our brain and muscle, not a single wheel would turn, we can break their haughty power and earn our freedom. It is we, the working people who make the world work, not capital, and we can build our own democratic institutions to organize our activities rather than depending on the authoritarian structures of capital.

[-] 1 points by DUBIETAS (5) 2 years ago

Occupy I was once so excited about us.

[-] 1 points by devilliers123 (18) 2 years ago

Bring out the Nominees

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

Just because we aren't running candidates doesn't mean that we aren't a party. The Republicans and Democrats do NOTHING that a real party of the people should do except run candidates. Occupy does EVERYTHING that a real party of the people has historically done except run candidates.

[-] 1 points by lancealotlink (147) 2 years ago

Who says we arnt running candidates? What am I chopped liver.

[-] 2 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

I do not know of any local general assembly in the nation that is running a candidate for any office under its own name or that has endorsed any candidate of any other party for any office. If there is one or more I would be most interested in where they are. It is certainly true that no local general assembly from no major city is either running a candidate under its own name for any political office or has endorsed the candidate of any other party for any political office

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6569) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

1sealyon

aflockofdoofi2

BLOWCHUNKS

DanielBarton

Dell

Demian

F350

Farmerbrown

Ironboltbruce

MsStacy

po6059

Rebdem

RedJazz43

slammersworldwillnotbecensored

VantagePoint250624

[-] 1 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

Get Out the Vote this November!

If YOU don't Vote, YOU don't Count!!!

[-] 0 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

I'm writing in Occupy. Occupy is my party. Democracy is about a lot more than a couple of minutes spent in a voting booth once a year.

[-] 1 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

That's right Jazzypants, 2006 and 08 were just the beginning, but some misinformed voters thought it was the victory. Democracy is not a spectator sport, if you don't get involved the Cons creep in.

Get Out the Vote this November!

If YOU don't Vote, YOU don't Count!!!

2010 Never EVER Again!!

[-] 0 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

I'm writing in Occupy. Other people will do what they will do. Some people won't vote. Gore Vidal calls that "conscientious nonparticipation" which I think is as valid as any other choice in a democracy. Voting only takes a couple of minutes a year, so why not vote. Even cast a blank ballot. But its not really what democracy looks like.

[-] 1 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

Vidal is a raving fool with the money to protect him from his mistakes.

Elections have results that we have to live with for years!

[-] 0 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

Yes, swapping back and forth one party of the 1% for the other party of the 1%. This is especially true of foreign policy which has been bipartisan since 1947 and as such not succeptable to change at the ballot box.

[-] 1 points by forbetter (54) 2 years ago

Occupy needs to come up with an alternative form of governance to replace the representative democracy we currently have.

A virtual General Assembly should be launched where people can vote on any issue (majority wins). The website should invite university student governments to join it, then town/city governments and organically grow to involving national governments.

[-] 0 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

The whole point of General Assemblies, or one of their main points, is that we interact at every level, including being together physically. One of the main points that sympathetic journalists made early on about Occupy is that it got people up and away from their computer screens and out in the streets where we interact with each other physically. Social interact is way down outside of the nuclear family and social interacton is what Occupy is all about. Right now my hunch is there is probably a local ga within commuting distance of 50% of the population. In theory there is no reason that there can't be a ga within commuting distance of 95% of the population. I think a focus on county seats would be good. County seats were designed in horse and buggy days to be within an hour or so of all the people they served by horse and buggy. By modern transportation they are much closer toall the people they serve and a ga in every county seat would virtually serve the whole American population and be a worthy organizing goal.

I realize that some people are severly disabled or truly isolated and for them certainly they should begin to convene an on line ga, but for the rest of us to do so is a cop out and antithetical to what Occupy is all about.

[-] 1 points by forbetter (54) 2 years ago

You have a good point, but is it practical in this technological era. Having an online GA would attract far more people. Right now most people are not even aware of what goes on at a physical GA. Online organizing is not bad, the Tunisian and Egyptian revolution were greatly aided by Facebook.

[-] 0 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

Ok, start a GA here, but I don't think it will have anything to do with Occupy which is about being in the streets together face to face among other things. I think using the internet to get people into the streets is great, but that's the point, use the internet to get people in the streets that's what the Egyptians did, not use it to keep people planted in front of their computer screens.

[-] 1 points by forbetter (54) 2 years ago

I think participation in physical GA's will increase if they are accompanied with virtual GA's.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

Well if you think it is so important why don't you start one? What's getting people out in the streets is twitter and to a lesser extent facebook, not sites like this, which IMHO is for kibbitzers, not serious movement activists. I just hang out here when I can't be at an occupation and because you can send longer messages than twitter.

[-] 1 points by forbetter (54) 2 years ago

I dream of GA's evolving in to shadow governments, and for that you will need to cast a wider net: develop a website to allow people to vote on any issue, even how collected donations are spent - involve university student governments, then town/city governments, and then organically evolve into national governments.

[-] 0 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

Why shadow governments? Why not THE government? But the whole point of GAs is interacting live. People are much nicer to each other in person. On line nearly everyone is gratuitously cruel. You know that the second you walk into an encampment. I could be wrong but I find it hard to believe that anyone who has ever been to an encampment could make the kind of arguments you are making.

[-] 1 points by forbetter (54) 2 years ago

I have never been to an Occupy encampment because I am sick, but I did build a website for a political movement that may next year form government in a major third world country (I regret being involved though, as representative democracy is all corrupt).

I seriously gave thought to the idea of launching an online direct rule website where people can vote on issues and govern how pooled donations are spent. Such a website could involve student governments, then town/city governments and then national governments. A website is just a technology to allow the common man to interact with the system, I'm not advocating abandoning physical GA's. I would launch this, I'm still tempted, but it should be done by someone who is involved with the physical occupy movement to make partnerships.

[-] 0 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

It is not clear to me exactly how this would work. Could you be more detailed?

[-] 2 points by forbetter (54) 2 years ago

The abstract idea is to enable a direct democracy on a mass scale, most people cannot make it to physical GA's everyday so use the internet to vote on proposals. People can vote on any issue proposed by someone provided it receives the most sponsors that day online. It is a way to keep governance in the hands of people instead of representatives.

This website and idea can be pitched to university student governments first for adoption, where the general student body will vote on every issue online instead of delegating power to representatives. I believe that the fairness of this system will then not only attract student governments, but be adopted by town, then city, and then one day national governments.

The website can have a bank account affiliated with it, governed by prominent social activists approved by votes. How that money will be used will also be determined by the voters online, therefore they will feel they have a voice and donate more. You could collect ALOT of money for the movement that way.

Proposals to be voted on can include anything, including such things as governments are normally responsible for - such as hiring people to clean streets or providing food and shelter to the needy/homeless. Those benefiting will start participating and donating as well. It will be like a voluntary tax (unless the system is adopted by an actual government).

The website can make partnerships with businesses that benefit from its activism (in the shape of Occupy actions), and alot of money for good can be raised that way.

Online direct governance is a modern alternative to representative democracy, which has been outdated by technology. It is a peaceful way to change the system.

I am sure there are flaws in this plan, but still consider it.

[-] 1 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

Don't fall for this. There are vast differences between Cons and Dems. Occupy is a public movement protesting the criminal inequality between the 1% and the rest of us 99%, We the People. Occupy is no more a political party as MLK's movement was. This post is a classic Republicon Scam! Don't be fooled!

[-] -1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

I am 69 years old. I have been an active political radical for nearly 50 years. I have been in several tiny groups that called themselves parties but weren't. One can choose to see Occupy any way they want and I don't put them down for it. I choose to see Occupy as a party and invite others to do likewise. I am not calling on Occupy to declare itself a party. I don't think it has to. I think it already is. I am loyal to Occupy. I am not loyal to the Republican Party or the Democratic Party. I am loyal to Occupy. Occupy is my Party.

And BTW, it was not "MLK's movement," it was OUR movement. Those of us in SNCC and CORE had little respect for King and we used to refer to him as "De Lawd." Occupy is my party.

[-] 2 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

Just don't fall for this guy's BS!

[-] -1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

It's not a matter of BS and I do not think your point of view is BS. Occupy is a very open movement. People come to it from all points of view and they don't drop their point of view just because they become active in Occupy. I consider Occupy my party. So far as I know I am the only person who thinks that so far. It is perfectly fine for everyone else to think other wise, but because I am loyal to Occupy I see Occupy as my party.

[-] 2 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

Occupy isn't a party. That you keep repeating it is, is BS. If millions of people believe your misinformation, the Cons will sweep in worse than in 2010 when newbie Dems pouted instead of Voted. Occupy is a wonderful movement that wakes the masses up to the gross inequality and Inside Job pulled off by Cons and their Big Biz employers.

But that is in jeopardy, too. Occupy has to get it's act together. No more Woodstock Reenactments, cardboard and crayon scribbles, sleeping bag parking lots. Occupy has to get it's PR on! Camera ready and picture perfect. Image is a responsibility! Loud and Clear signs, banners and FLAGS!! Got it? Get it? Good!

[-] 0 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

Occupy is so broad that anyone can bring to it any sensibility they want. You choose not to think of it as a party. That's fine. I accept that. I choose to think of it as a party. It's not a matter of misinformation. It's an opinion, a point of view and Occupy is open to a diversity of views.

In terms of Occupy getting "it's act together" how do yu propose it do that and what are you doing to make it happen? This is not a rhetorical question, nor is it meant to be hostile. I'm sincerely interested. There are many ideas presented on this forum but little about how to implement them.

[-] 1 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

Occupy has to get it's act together. No more Woodstock Reenactments, cardboard and crayon scribbles, sleeping bag parking lots.

Occupy has to get it's PR on! Get and stay camera ready and picture perfect. Image is a responsibility! Loud and Clear signs, banners and FLAGS!! Got it? Get it? Good! America was with us until they saw the bad images on TV.

[-] 0 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

Exactly how do you propose Occupy get its act together? What are you doing personally to make that happen?

[-] 1 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

What is wrong with you? Read: Occupy has to get it's act together. No more Woodstock Reenactments, cardboard and crayon scribbles, sleeping bag parking lots.

Occupy has to get it's PR on! Get and stay camera ready and picture perfect. Image is a responsibility! Loud and Clear signs, banners and FLAGS!! Got it? Get it? Good! America was with us until they saw the bad images on TV.

[-] 0 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

I don't think that simply insisting that a group of people need to do something is necessarily a way to get them to do it or at least not adequate. Besides insisting that Occupy needs to get its act together what are you doing personally to get Occupy to get its act together?

[-] 1 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

Just what I wrote. I'm physically handicapped. I see, hear, read, and think all day and night and you are annoying me. Be gone fool.

VOTE!!

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by gforz (-43) 2 years ago

Good luck to you guys in November.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

If you are hostile to OWS, why are you on this forum? Obviously we are not running candidates, nor do we endorse the candidates of any other party. Our power is in the streets.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

That isnt power, unless you get enough people. And by being very bland, you never will.

People want leaders, they want other optoins besides D and R. But no one is willing to step to the plate and give it a shot.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

Popular movements thoughout history have influenced both politics and culture without necessarily running candidates. They have typically done this through a process of social dislocation. Basically by saying a massive NO to the ruling elites. By acknowledging that while we may not be in a position to rule society we can be so disruptive as to keep it from functioning (at least not very well) until our needs are met. That's exactly how mass movements have worked time after time.

[-] 0 points by gforz (-43) 2 years ago

There was an article yesterday, can't remember exactly where I read it (maybe Real Clear Politics), but it was about the "problem" Obama and his people were having deciphering independent voters. The gist of the story was that 2/3 of these voters believed that this country was basically fair, there were of course problems, but that generally the country gave people the freedom to make their own choices and was fair. There are lots of leading questions people might agree with on an individual basis, but the fact that most people think the country is basically fair is an issue not only for Obama but for OWS as well. You might really believe at a OWS rally with a few hundred or a thousand people that you are representing everyone, but the fact is you're not. There are many people who sit bemusedly at home feeling like they're watching the Jim Jones cult in Guyana when you see the "people's mic" chanting. There is a limited amount of commonality and support that most people have for OWS such as ridding the political system of huge money, making sure the banking system cannot take down the entire economy and everyone's retirement accounts with it, figuring out what to do about healthcare, and the ridiculous cost of education (I have two daughters in college right now). Other than that, if some of the loopy solutions that are brought up by OWS or liberals were ever seriously considered, you'd have a lot of folks like ME in the streets.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

Of course Occupy is a small movement, a tiny movement in fact. I don't know any Occupy activist who isn't aware of that. And Occupy activists don't "represent" anyone excepting themselves. That, in fact, is one of the cardinal principles of the movement. Liberals are one thing the Occupy movement is quite another. It is self consciously a revolutionary movement. Just look at the homepage of this website. Patience is a revolutionary virtue. Our project, which is not about exchanging one party of the 1% for another but about the overthrow of corporate power may take decades or even several lifetimes.

[-] 0 points by gforz (-43) 2 years ago

Hence my use of the word "or" between OWS and liberals. Using just plain old logic, I'd have to disagree that OWS activists are only representing themselves. Why else would the term 99% be used, and chants of "Weeee are, the 99%". I'm sorry, but that just doesn't fly. It is a deliberate attempt to make one's movement seem larger, much larger. I am far and away part of what they would call the 99%, but don't feel that they represent very many of my views. Why not just be honest and say, "We are the 3%, but we'd like to convince the rest of the 99%". I mean, think about how you feel when someone you don't agree with claims to represent your feelings, like say evangelical Christians claiming that America is a Christian nation. I am all for protest and activism if that's what people want to do to try and influence their society, just don't try and hijack a narrative.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

Occupy activists, for the most part accurately as far as I can determine, are part of the 99% as individuals. They also claim to represent no one but themselves in local general assemblies, which are the only decision making bodies of the movement.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Since Occupy they have passed three free trade bills, continued bombing multiple countries, passed NDAA, considered PIPA/SOPA, and done nothing but cheap talk bullshit.

This isnt a one issue stance that Occupy has. Its basically "You are too powerful and we want it". Its basically "Give me your fuckin money".

You WANT what they HAVE. The only time this ever works is when its a full blown revolution. And the country isnt there, and probably wont ever be there.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

Yup

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]