General Discussion

patrice

(47,992 posts)

23. There's a balance of individuality:group that is necessary, because being more inclusive can also

Wed May 2, 2012, 11:42 PM

May 2012

mean the opposite of the possibility which you site, "just obeying the Democratic party leadership", i.e. the inability to coalesce for the more OR LESS well grounded fear of being co-opted.

Going through the motions of horizontal leaderless processes does not necessarily RESULT in horizontality, especially if important pieces of group self-knowledge are missing or possibly even held in isolation for fear of some of the things I sketched above. Just doing the horizontal thing does NOT make it happen. People have to commit to it and their ability to do that can be enhanced, or much more likely, limited by their own histories and personalities.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

51 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

General debate: Do YOU think activist groups can ally with a party yet stay true to themselves? [View all] Ken Burch May 2012 OP

I think either/or propositions are very un-realistic, because they artificially limit the terms and patrice May 2012 #1

That's why I included the part about tradeoffs. Ken Burch May 2012 #5

Re artificially limiting the terms: What about the converse of your question? e.g. patrice May 2012 #2

Poltical parties, by themselves, seldom have core values. Ken Burch May 2012 #4

Okay, so there is the possibility of effective pressure from outside of a party. What about the core patrice May 2012 #7

depends on the Democrat you're talking about. Ken Burch May 2012 #8

So the tradeoffs between business activist groups and the Democratic party more recently included patrice May 2012 #12

So corporate money is like garlic to a vampire? randome May 2012 #13

Personally, I don't think ally = identify, but that's me -AND- it IS necessary to *KNOW* what you're patrice May 2012 #14

They DON'T ignore groups that share the same values. Ken Burch May 2012 #21

There's a balance of individuality:group that is necessary, because being more inclusive can also patrice May 2012 #23

OK, that's a valid concern. Ken Burch May 2012 #15

They are ALL over our Occupy. Doing little of the work and showing up to collect signatures patrice May 2012 #18

I met one of those people...couldn't understand where she was coming from. Ken Burch May 2012 #35

Imagine the threat to labor organizers that their presence poses. All it would take patrice May 2012 #40

A couple of links related to this question: patrice May 2012 #17

My groups linked with whoever did what we believed. ASF, SWP, Dem, whatever. freshwest May 2012 #3

ASF? what the heck was that? Ken Burch May 2012 #10

They do it all the time in real democracies rucky May 2012 #6

Like Britain in the Nineties? Where the almost the entire activist Left shuttered its operations Ken Burch May 2012 #9

And now that you're aware of that possibility... randome May 2012 #11

That's my intent Ken Burch May 2012 #16

The left here in the US RobertEarl May 2012 #19

Well put. Ken Burch May 2012 #20

So how does that relate to the issues usually associated with "States' Rights"? patrice May 2012 #22

It would involve a complete overhaul of the nature of local and regional governance Ken Burch May 2012 #24

And a BIG response to what we have learned, now, is an infatuation with Anarchy. patrice May 2012 #27

I don't favor "Anarchy", or even anarchism(the two things AREN'T the same, btw) Ken Burch May 2012 #31

An orienting point can be different things to different people. I was referring to the patrice May 2012 #36

Sounds like your vision is RobertEarl May 2012 #29

I suppose it's influenced by that, and also by the African village forms of governance Ken Burch May 2012 #33

Internet could facilitate that nationally RobertEarl May 2012 #37

It would be better Ken Burch May 2012 #42

The problem is your view sometime cries wolf when there are no wolves around. bluestate10 May 2012 #28

It's a view that's naive or manipulative in all of it's, TTE, "If it isn't _________, then it is 0." patrice May 2012 #32

Labour Party =/= Democrats. Why does everyone assume that all Democrats are a bunch of robots??? patrice May 2012 #25

We had the same thing in the U.S. in the Nineties Ken Burch May 2012 #30

I remember. I always hated being around "the party" because it was soooooooooooo clear that patrice May 2012 #34

Why can't Labor be it's own party? That'd be a 3rd party of big enough size to actually matter. patrice May 2012 #41

There's something to be said for the idea. Ken Burch May 2012 #43

There are some stupid people who will turn off at the word Left, but Labor reaches patrice May 2012 #46

Yes. bluestate10 May 2012 #26

Eh?? RobertEarl May 2012 #38

I suppose you would have to say that Martin Luther King allied with the Democrats JDPriestly May 2012 #39

King made a temporary, tactical alliance, but he mainly his distance from the party. Ken Burch May 2012 #45

Generally, that is the way it works with the Democratic Party. JDPriestly May 2012 #51

not Occupy. U4ikLefty May 2012 #44

No. I think they have grow large enough that the party allies with *them*. Marr May 2012 #47

No, but individual people who are members of both activists and parties-- eridani May 2012 #48

Wasn't saying they weren't Ken Burch May 2012 #49

Yeah, I suspected as much. I really work at keeping the two roles separate, though eridani May 2012 #50