Forum Post: What if OWS inspires a new party?
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 3, 2011, 10:06 p.m. EST by zomgkitteh
(0)
from Spanish Fort, AL
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
What if?! I think we need a 3 party that represents these ideas brought to OWS. It may just be the party that we need to bring our country out of the mud.
Hate to break it to you, but there are already dozens of other parties. Problem: Nobody votes for them (not even the people on this website)
Nobody votes. Diebold machines do it for you.
diebold machines can be hacked remotely for less then 20$ in equipment
Exactly. Elections do not exist in America anymore.
Let's call the new anti-corporate greed party, "The Party's Over!"--It's now or never!---Plus, it'll be great fun !
Whether or not there's a new party or whether there is a leadership or not or whether there is even a sustained "movement" or not, the fact is that consciousness is being raised every single day, with every news report, with every politico who doesn't respond, with every post, with every passerby, with all that we do and all that we say, consciousness is being raised. The conversation has started. It will not stop. The cat has left the bag. People will hear.
Believe.
It is our futures that we're talking about.
a new civilization is needed. The failed one we're inheriting from our parents will do us more harm than good
Laws are Just books of human faults
how about we do away with parties altogether and abolish government. I do not need someone else telling me how to live my life. society should be organized on voluntary associations. we don't need anymore masters, which is all you get from voting. communities can take care of their own matters as they see fit. national matters (such as defense and international relations) can be handled by an association of delegates selected by the people
"association of delegates selected by the people" Also know as government
government is a firm of force and control
govern [ˈgʌvən] vb (mainly tr)
an association of directly responsible delegates, only able to decide upon policy based on the wishes of those they represent is not government in the sense we know it. these delegates are subject to immediate recall at anytime.
you defined the word GOVERN not GOVERNMENT
Government refers to the legislators, administrators, and arbitrators in the administrative bureaucracy who control a state at a given time, and to the system of government by which they are organized. Government is the means by which state policy is enforced, as well as the mechanism for determining the policy of the state.
The word government is derived from the Latin verb gubernare, an infinitive meaning "to govern" or "to manage".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government
gov·ern·ment [guhv-ern-muhnt, ‐er-muhnt] Show IPA noun 1. the political direction and CONTROL (emphasis added) exercised over the actions of the members, citizens, or inhabitants of communities, societies, and states; direction of the affairs of a state, community, etc.; political administration: Government is necessary to the existence of civilized society. 2. the form or system of rule by which a state, community, etc., is governed: monarchical government; episcopal government. 3. the governing body of persons in a state, community, etc.; administration. 4. a branch or service of the supreme authority of a state or nation, taken as representing the whole: a dam built by the government.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/government
a GOVERNMENT is a THING (noun) which preforms the ACTION (verb) of GOVERNING, i.e. controlling.
btw, Wikipedia is NOT a credible source. from wikipedia itself: " In any case, you should not cite Wikipedia itself, but the source provided; you should certainly look up the source yourself before citing it. If there is no source cited, consider a different method of obtaining this information." and "While reading Wikipedia articles for research, remember to consider the information carefully, and never treat what is on Wikipedia as surefire truth."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Academic_use
anarcho-syndicalism presents the best option, IMO, for the organization of a society:
"Unlike supposedly representative politicians, delegates within the anarcho-syndicalist union may not have a tenure of years or even decades. Practises such as these which allow individual to maintain control over the reigns of responsibility for so long inculcate a love of power, and are destructive to social freedom. For that reason delegates within the anarcho-syndicalist union are regularly rotated, meaning that they may be hold a position of official responsibility for a short period of time -- six months, one year or at the outside two -- but must afterwards step aside and allow a different individual to take their place. Any delegate who steps outside of the boundaries of their mandate may be recalled. It is by means of the processes of appointing delegates and making them mandated and instantly recallable that the direct democracy inherant in the anarcho-syndicalist union, and the social autonomy of each of its members, is maintained."
http://www.anarchosyndicalism.net/faq/1d.htm#1d3b
even we anarchist must acknowledge that societies must deal with each other.
Somebody has been watching too much Monty Python.
DENNIS: I told you. We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week. But all the decision of that officer have to be ratified at a special biweekly meeting. By a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs, but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more--
But on a more serious note, "association of delegates selected by the people" is still a form of government no matter what you call it.
I must admit anarcho-syndicalism sounds like an interesting idea for a small group of people, but I think it would not have enough teeth to deal with a corrupt company or to deal with international affairs.
I could see it working at something like a town level but not a national level.
Still nifty idea.
funny you should mention monty python, I just watched that clip about 30 minutes ago o.O I've been interested in anarchism in general for about 15 years and syndicalism for not much less time.
government to me means force and control. anarcho-syndicalism's delegate system would work well at all levels of society. it would work best at the local levels, but that is where most people live their lives, the city and state levels.many people aren't much more concerned with things beyond their immediate lives. if it doesn't directly effect them, they don't care.
I would make it so that the people who select their delegates as well as delegates themselves (with say 70% majority) can remove a delegate. we would need some sort of governing document for the delegates (let's call it a constitution)
it wouldn't be the place necessarily of the national delegation to deal with corrupt companies. I believe that the Mondragon model of business mixed with AS (anarcho-syndicalist) principals would greatly prevent the corruption we see so prevalent in society today. if the people who actually worked for a company had a say in how that company was run, when executive officers get out of hand they could be removed. take home depot. their CEO did a lot of damage to the company, if it had been arranged on an AS/Mondragon model, the employees could have removed him if they felt he was not doing a good job before he did too much damage.
the biggest issue I see with AS/Mondragon working is it takes more involvement with things that actually effect you. it seems many people simply want to be told what to do and believe and not think for themselves.
Huge Monty Python fan my self.
"the biggest issue I see with AS/Mondragon working is it takes more involvement with things that actually effect you. it seems many people simply want to be told what to do and believe and not think for themselves."
And there in is the the problem.
I have long thought Anarchy would work if people could be trusted, but then I heard this quite and it all finally clicked why society could never embrace Anarchy
First time I read Emma Goldman wasn't in a book. I was sixteen, hiking near the Nevada border . The quote was painted on a wall in red. When I saw those words it was like someone ripped them from the inside of my head. Anarchism... stands for liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion; the liberation of the human body from the dominion of property; liberation from shackles and restraint of government. It stands for social order based on the free grouping of individuals. The concept was pure, simple, true, it inspired me, led a rebellious fire, but ultimately I learned the lesson that Goldman, Prudot and the others learned. That true freedom requires sacrifice and pain. Most human beings only think they want freedom. In truth they yearn for the bondage of social order, rigid laws, materialism, the only freedom man really wants, is the freedom to become comfortable. --http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1261701/quotes
And that is the reason this would never work on a national level. Sad but true.
I honestly don't see america surviving as a union if there was a true revolution and the corporation known as the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA was dissolved. there are too many divisions in our country :(
who knows what the future holds maybe this experiment known as the USA has run its course, Rome fell why can't we?
Then again, it could be the mice finally have the question to the ultimate answer...42...
i agree we need to form a new party. been doing that from FB. https://www.facebook.com/groups/211230325568382/
your not the first person to say that and i wish you'd have found the older threads.
Parties corrupt good ideas. It's better to support those who can deliver.
It sounds great. but an idea can't be corrupted.. A party can...as we know thru history. I just hate to see the idea get burried while the party flourishes.
an idea cannot be corrupted, nor can it be elected.
Socialist Party