Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Why not the Independent Party ?

Posted 6 years ago on Feb. 18, 2012, 12:43 p.m. EST by TheTrollSlayer (347) from Kingsport, TN
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

The occupy movement gave people who were long fed up with the republican democrat government screwing up this country something to be a part of by supporting it and i believe there are many. They do share similar views on the problems with government. I myself am not religious but maybe we can work thru such differences for a common goal.



Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by factsrfun (8733) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

We'll get there as soon as we get rid of the Republicans.

[-] 2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 6 years ago

The more parties the better.

[-] 1 points by Hammerbxny (1) from New York, NY 6 years ago

Why an independent party? It is not the party that matters but the person at the top. Ok .... Lets go with the notion of an independent third party, will the party leader be someone who is in the top 1% in terms of earnings? Can a person at the top earning millions relate to you and me?

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 6 years ago

To repeat factsrfun, "We'll get there as soon as we get rid of the Republicans."

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 6 years ago

"They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom for trying to change the system from within." -leo c.

The system is perfect, in that is can not be changed from within. No amount of voting will ever take power away from the greedy sociopathic cabal that runs this place. The only offered candidates will always be one of tweedle dee or tweedle dumber. Real change will come from us the people, and it will rise from ground level till the Park Ave. penthouses are submerged.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 6 years ago

We'll get there as soon as we get rid of the Republicans.

[-] 1 points by OccupySeatleProtester (1) 6 years ago

You want Occupy to become religious and political?

Is this even an OWS website?

[-] 1 points by TheTrollSlayer (347) from Kingsport, TN 6 years ago

Neither my friend but we need candidates to bring this change. When Obama ran for president promising a change that didn't happen, alot of people voted for him for that reason. We need a candidate that will do what the people want, where Obama failed and it seems to me neither party in power now can unite to do anything but pander to the elite. Was just asking about this anyway.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 6 years ago

ignoring parties for this - here is a very sincere question -
of all of the political changes we want -
of all of the societal changes we want -
of all of the economic changes we want -
of all of the educational changes we want -
how many would not be very significantly moved
by getting money out of politics?

why don't we all start with that goal -
overturn citizens united & buckley/veleo

[-] 1 points by TheTrollSlayer (347) from Kingsport, TN 6 years ago

Agreed but i still think we need a candidate to help accomplish such. Since Dem's and Repub's both pander to the elite and air headed, then we need something else. My family has voted Democrat for years as the lesser of two ill's and after Obama's so called change that never happened then we need something else.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 6 years ago

I think OWS is wonderful and I support it wholeheartedly, but it is way too pathetically small to organize a party of any meaningful significance. In the long run I'm all for it, but right now it would be premature and would only reveal the weakness of the movement and not its strength. Right now our main project has to be to continue to build the movement. Once we have several million activists will be time enough to consider a next step.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 6 years ago

by then it will be too late - it may be already
just look at the success OWS + willard have had illuminating
citizens united & superPACS

83% of Americans polled want to get rid of CU
how many more of the 17% do we need on our side before we ACT

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 6 years ago

One of the ironic distinctions between revolutionaries and liberals is that revolutionaries, contrary to common conception, tend to be considerably more patient and have a longer view of social change than do liberals. Patience is a revolutionary virtue. By no means am I advocating "the worse the better." I simply don't believe that the movement at this point is of sufficient strength to meaningfully affect outcomes in any direction and that being the case the main task of the movement must remain for the immediate and forseeable future to continue to build itself and in fact in so doing that is the most profound effect it is likely to have on the electoral process in the immediate future.

In any event regardless of my own views, I really don't see the adoption of an electoral perspective by any significant GA to be a very likely prospect. The decision making process of the GAs are simply not structured in such a way to allow for such a change as a minority anarchistic presence will always be there to block such a reorientation. Added to that there is also a small but significant group of advocates for the Green Party and other third parties as well as a tendency that would want OWS itself to constitute itself as a political party. With all that political diversity I don't see how it is at all likely for OWS as a movement to take a unified position toward electoral action.

I don't have any magical solutions to that. I think people who identify with OWS and want to work for the election of Democrats will do just that, people who support OWS and the Green Party will undoubtedly vote for and perhaps even work for Green Party candidates and OWS activists who oppose all electoral action will continue to do so. I simply don't see OWS as a movement taking a unified position on electoral action or how it is likely to do so, though I am prepared to be convinced otherwise.

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 6 years ago

Fundamentally, I agree with you 100%
And if you promise not to throw bricks at me, here is my answer

We are not Quakers - generally unified with minor disagreements -
The OWS range of greens, anarchists, liberals, conservatives etc etc cannot work in this model.
The NYC Visions and Goals group has produced a supurb document - after thousands of person-hours - that cannot get thru the NYC GA.

The leaderless, minority rules - will not work beyond where OWS is now
I don't mean to be insulting, but we are the tp on the left.
The tp took its marches and its banners, went to the next step, took over a major political party,
halted virtually every political compromise that would have helped America move forward -

I believe too many OWSers are religiously clinging to the idea that the old ways don't work and we have to do something different.
Just as an example- The Catholic church clings to the inferiority of women and to celibacy, and in 1000-2000 years, their closed minded WRONG beliefs have cost the church dearly.

They do not have the courage to change their model - DO WE ?

OWS must evolve into a model that has worked for centuries-
MLK, Walessa, Gandhi, Stanton, Adams, Mandella

Our problems are not based on our political system or the parties
I believe that virtually every problem we have is based on the foundation of
...................................................................................MONEY IN POLITICS

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 6 years ago

This is a very well thought out argument. Waiting to grow the movement? How long do we wait? A year, two years, four years . . . and when will we know we have gotten there?

Every successful social movement has had an action element and a political element, because neither alone can get the job done.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 6 years ago

I have seen so many brilliant, creative,
OWS activists working so hard on the streets and
developing, writng and editing documents.
If our goal is to get the money out of politics, various polls have shown
public support for EVERY aspect of this goal ranging from
74% support to 92% support
We must acknowledge our success -
America wants what we want.
We want what America wants.
There are 12 - yes TWELVE !
constitutional amendments already IN CONGRESS.

"Which ones should we support and why and how"

That is where we should be.

That is where I am - Join the NYC OWS
Corporations are not People and Money is not Speech Working Group

regular meetings Wednesdays 6-8PM @ 60 Wall St – The Attrium

[-] 1 points by TheTrollSlayer (347) from Kingsport, TN 6 years ago

Good point. Then we could work on the other problem that wastes tremendous amounts of money over time and that's stupid. Egotistical, air headed, glory tripping, bone headed wanna be's that think they know how to run this, do that and end up wasting untold amounts of money. The problems in politics are not just crooks but air headed idiots as well.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 6 years ago

By Jove, I think he's got something there.........!

If we get the money out, we may be able to move in a positive direction.

Lord knows, having all that money in the system isn't working out too well.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 6 years ago


Because of the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision,
we cannot accomplish anything significant,
without FIRST ending corporate personhood.
Because 83% of Americans already agree on it - we don’t have to explain or persuade people to accept our position – we only have to persuade them to ACT based on their own position. Pursuing this goal will prove to the world that we, at OWS, are a serious realistic Movement, with serious realistic goals.
Achieving this goal will make virtually every other goal –
jobs, taxes, infrastructure, Medicare – much easier to achieve –
by disarming our greatest enemy – GREED.
I feel that using the tactics of the NRA, the AARP an the TP – who all represent a minority – who have successfully used their voting power to achieve their minority goals - plus the Prohibition Amendment tactics – bringing all sides together - is a straight path for us to success

Join the our NYC
Corporations are not People and Money is not Speech Working Group
………….( even if you are not near NYC )

Plan details http://bit.ly/vK2pGI

regular meetings Wednesdays 6-8PM @ 60 Wall St – The Attrium

..███░░ ░███░..░███.░.█░░░█░░░░.████░.░███░░░

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 6 years ago

I completely agree that the decision making process is both far from adequate and not particularly democratic. That said, I don't particularly have any insights (brilliant or otherwise) as to how to change that situation, nor have I seen much practical discussion of that issue.

I suspect that most OWS activists would agree that the central problem is money in politics, however that is not the position of the dominant controlling tendencies in OWS who tend to see the problem as more systemic. That is, if you really parse out the grievances in the Declaration of the Occupation, as I read them anyway, they seem to suggest to me that the problem is much deeper than the corporate domination of our political system and has more to do with the very existence of corporations as an organizing principle for our culture and society.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 6 years ago

I know there is a very strong anti-corporate movement here.
I'm not an expert, but this is what I see -
corporations are
a way to pool capital to perform a large task -
such as build roads or provide medical care -
and profit the investors -
and protect the management.

It is not this structure that is at fault -
any more than a wild animal, such as a tiger, kept at home -
it must be kept in a cage - REGULATED
the corporate purpose can be regulated to put people's needs first -
such as not to exploit workers
the corporate profit can be regulated to put people's needs first -
such as not to create hazerdous waste
the corporate "veil" protecting management can be regulated to
not allow egregious behavior

corporations are totally motivated by greed, and the money they pour into politics is a NATURAL thing for them to do
BUT that does not mean we should dispose of it
If your child steals a candy bar, do you dispose of him?

The fault, dear Brutus is not in our stars.....

[-] 0 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 6 years ago

I don't know how many OWS activists you have talked to, but the core of activists tend to be extremely radical in their views and vision. They conceptualize a post corporate world in which the resources of the world would be organized very differently than is the case today. Many are anarchists and envision a world without nation states, without borders and even without money a world which would be governed by a general assembly in every neighborhood. Personally, that's not quite my own position, but it's out there and it exerts considerable influence in most of the major GAs. It is true that most OWS activists (not just supporters but activists) have much more moderate views not dissimilar to your own, but despite the fact that they constitute a majority they are not particularly well organized and as such exert considerably less influence on the movement than do the much better organized radicals.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 6 years ago

To be brutally frank, this breaks my heart.
I have spoken directly to over 200 OWS people since November.
They are so brilliant and creative!
I just cannot understand how they can create the world of a sci-fi novelist in their heads -
but do not know it if is fiction.

MLK dreams of a new food that makes all peoples brotherly.
Jane Stanton imagines men will willingly give women the vote & always treat them equally
Abraham Lincoln imagines a one month war that frees the slaves and eliminates all race hatred

I guess I am especially influenced by my anti-Vietnam war activities.
We did not image a good world - with war no more.or no political system
We knew our goal END THE WAR
and we did everything we could -
on the streets - and in Washington - to get it done.
Frankly, it could be argued that in Chicago, we went too far -
centering on the THEATRE -
and in stead of a new President who would end the war soon,
we got tricky dick.
God help us if we go down that path -
just listen to the people right here who want to
vote for RP or who blindly insist that D=R

creating a "new" world - without countries or corporations, etc
IS the job of novelists and children
creating a "better" world is an achieveable goal - ONLY IF WE ARE REALISTIC

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 6 years ago

I can't for the life of me see why this should be heart breaking. IMHO it should be astonishingly inspirational. Radicals have always been the best organizers in any social movement and that is as true today as it was in 19660 or 1935. They are prefectly cognizant that their views and their vision is not consonant with 99% of the population (that's one reason why radicals, ironically, tend to be much more patient than liberals).

Concretely, it's been the radicals in this movement (whether because or in spite of their vision is an interesting discussion) who have done not only the most effective organizing for OWS but virtually all the organizing (while liberals mostly carped about how radicals were fucking up the movement). Probably the most astonishing thing that OWS radicals have done is build the first alliance between organized labor and the radical intelligentcia since the 1940s. They've also done what radicals always do: give the liberals a program to water down.

What I think is distressing to the liberals and politically unformed at the base of the movement is that they tend to see the current crisis as cyclical and as such solvable within the context of the current system whereas the radicals tend to see the current crisis as systemic and as such permanent without a fundamental transformation of the whole social system as different from the present system as revolutionary France was from feudal Europe.

This is also difficult for many people to comprehend because this makes this movement fundamentally different and much more radical than anything that has preceded it at least in living memory. Earlier movements in the lifetime of virtually every living activist have been very specific--to end specific wars or to gain specific rights for specific groups of people. Because the intiators of the movement tend to see the current crisis as much more profound and comprehensive from their point of view it is not and cannot be about a narrow set of demands.

Probably the most similar anticedents to the present movement are perhaps the old Socialist Party in the first decade or so of the 20th century or perhaps the Populists in the 1880s and early 1890s. These were not just real mass movements (which OWS is not yet) but genuine cultures of opposition.

I may be absolutely incorrect in this assessment but it seems to me that anyone who is knashing their teeth about how distressing the situation in the present movement can't really be very attached to it as I think, people who are deeply involved in the movement (whatever their point of view and whether I agree with them or not ) are far too busy and immersed in the movement to waste time or emotions with that kind of rug chewing.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 6 years ago

As the Situationists noted more than half a century ago the most realist approach is to demand the impossible

[-] 1 points by TheTrollSlayer (347) from Kingsport, TN 6 years ago

We said. I also believe part of the problem that doesn't get acknowledged enough is the air headed morons that get put in charge that waste untold amounts of tax money from the local level on up.


[-] 1 points by nucleus (3291) 6 years ago

Independent like Joe Lieberman?

[-] 2 points by TheTrollSlayer (347) from Kingsport, TN 6 years ago

we could do better

[-] 0 points by RogerDee (411) from Montclair, NJ 6 years ago

Occupy transcends political party.

[-] -2 points by BlackSun (275) from Agua León, BC 6 years ago

Oh for...... No it doesn't. Many here support the democrat party. Jesus fucking Christ GET A CLUE!

[-] 1 points by TheTrollSlayer (347) from Kingsport, TN 6 years ago

Obama got elected on a change that didn't happen. The democrats pander to the elite as well, we need different.

[-] 0 points by BlackSun (275) from Agua León, BC 6 years ago

Actually I agree with you. But many here still have faith in the republicrats.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 6 years ago

One of the great advantages of a physical face to face movement is that no matter how much people disagree face to face they tend not to be as insulting face to face as is the above on line comment.

[-] -1 points by BlackSun (275) from Agua León, BC 6 years ago


[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 6 years ago

At the risk of being insultingly accused of repeating myself that is exactly my point. I'm really not sure if the above comment was meant sincerely or was meant to be ironic. If the latter is the case then it is clearly insulting which is exactly my point. People who see themselves in solidarity with each other and with the movement are much less likely to insult each other when they interact on a personal physical basis. The distance which electronic media allows us also allows us to dehumanize people with whom we disagree, making it a lot easier for us to insult each other. I do not claim to be immune from this myself in any way as people have suggested that my own views are arrogant and elitist, which is not my conscious intention by any means.