New Paradigm going forward: Are you for or against policies that benefit the 99% over the 1%

[stevenleser]

That is with what I came away from OWS today. It didnt matter so much to what group you belong, in my case Democrats, but Greens were there, Socialists, etc. There was a unity among left leaning people that I have not seen in my lifetime. There was only one minor exception and I will talk about that below.

The point is, even what folks did in the past can be forgiven. The question going forward is, are you in favor or against policies that benefit the 99% over the wealthiest 1%. That I think is the new paradigm.

The only exception to the unity I saw at OWS were from some folks from wsws.org who started passing out some single sheet document that suggested that Democrats and unions were trying to 'infiltrate' OWS. Again, I think they are missing the point entirely and I think this encompasses the question of whether the "Tea Party" can join OWS. The question for everyone should be the same, former tea partiers, Democrats, Greens, etc. Are you in favor of policies that benefit the 99% over the 1%. That will eliminate 99.99999999% of Teabaggers right there. They want to cut taxes for the wealthy and remove regulations from corporations and allow corporations to spend infinite money on campaign donations. That eliminates them IMHO.

[RegieRocker]

1. Right you are 100%

[aquart]

2. If they insist on "purity", they will lose.

If the only question is the one you posed, they will sweep the earth. But, of course, the devil is in the details.

[FarLeftFist]

3. Exactly. The Tea Party were the ones shilling for the corps. OWS and the TP are apples and banana's.

[FarLeftFist]

4. Also, wsws is also trying to co-opt it, but could you blame them?

All in all this is a heavily left-wing movement that should bring many new young members to the Democratic party.

[stevenleser]

5. Well, I am a tried and true loyal Democrat, but this is bigger than any group. I know that now.

This movement is something very, very special. Hard to put into words. I am still digesting it.

[FarLeftFist]

6. I've been calling it the New American Left. It is it's own entity.

[Pirate Smile]

7. Is anyone discouraging voting? I've gotten that vibe from a few things. Both parties suck, give up

on the ballot....

That worries me A LOT.

[stevenleser]

9. I didnt hear that today. There was one guy going around registering people.

I didnt hear anyone at OWS suggesting that people not vote.

[Pirate Smile]

11. Good - because that's been freaking me out.

The whole "the systems so corrupted and both Parties are terrible so we should refuse to participate in their corrupt games" argument - which is a great way to end up with Republicans controlling everything and the entire country getting screwed.

[ClassWarrior]

13. Wow. Those are some paranoia issues right there.

I mean, you dreamt up all that from "a vibe you were getting??"

:crazy:

NGU.

[Pirate Smile]

16. No, I didn't dream it up. I read comments that say as much from reporters on twitter and other

places. There is certainly a segment on the left that's been pushing that mantra for quite a while.

Dems are as bad as Repubs so expend as much or more energy trying to take them down as Republicans. That is not a rare viewpoint - especially on DU & other sites. Don't act like that is some crazy notion no one has ever pushed lately.

[ClassWarrior]

22. Reporters and Twitter. There are some reliable sources.

:eyes:

Keep letting a handful of disruptors work you into a lather.

NGU.

[JDPriestly]

25. Nobody on DU wants to bring down real Democrats.

Obama is not a real Democrat. He has now appointed Zelikow to a committee that advises him on intelligence issues. That is as Republican -- and really ineffective Republican -- as you can get.

[bluestate10]

26. Pirate is right.

If the OWS people really believe the Nader mantra that there is no difference between democrats and republicans, then they have fucked up from the start. There is a difference, a very big difference. What the democratic party needs is a super majority in the House and Senate, a majority so big that the votes of blue-dogs won't be needed to pass progressive legislation.

[ClassWarrior]

37. If.

:eyes:

NGU.

[DonCoquixote]

40. Go read tedrall.com

he has been trying to discourage voting among the left.

[ClassWarrior]

41. Wow. One. That's a helluva movement.

:eyes:

NGU.

[eridani]

23. It is, and nothing will change without this kind of action.

However, it still matters who holds office, and the various third party formations have not been serious about elections since before WW II.

[arikara]

33. I doubt it, the kids are smarter than that

the Democratic party as it has evolved as of today with its 3rd way strategy is not left or populist in the least. It is just as greedy for corporate largess as the republicans are.

[socialist_n_TN]

8. RE: wsws........

Because they were passing out leaflets they were trying to co-opt the OWS movement? I'm sure they have their agenda and want to get the agenda out there amongst people who might be receptive to that agenda, but I'm not sure I would call that co-opting. In fact being basically a Trotskyist organization, one might could say that they've been fighting this fight against the 1% longer than most. I know that I would want to get my group's agenda out there amongst people who might be receptive.

Also being a Trotskyist org, if they truly are following the guidelines laid out by Trotsky himself during his lifetime, I would say that they would DEFINITELY and unequivocally be on the side of policies that benefit the 99%.

I hope you're not suggesting that people and groups that were fighting against capitalism when a lot of people were voting for the candidates and policies, Democrat and Republican, that fed this corporate takeover are trying to "take over" a anti corporate movement.

If anything we were the first ones to fight this.

[stevenleser]

10. I am not the one who made that suggestion, another poster did. I AM saying, however...

that the point is not whether you are a Democrat, a member of a public union, or a green or a Socialist.

Each person needs to be evaluated individually in terms of whether they are in favor of policies that favor the 99% over the 1%. For WSWS.ORG to be putting out that divisive paper castigating "Democrats" and "Unions" as a whole, misses the point. They have a missive somewhat similar to this handout on their website. http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/oct2011/pers-o08.shtml

OWS makes this kind of rhetoric obsolete, IMHO. This is a new day. What are you going to do NOW. Trying to fight the same old demagogic battles against each other is stupid.

[socialist_n_TN]

15. I'm sorry, but I have no problem with that article

It's pretty damn close to what I believe. The Democrats have in the past co-opted mass populist movements. Hell you might could say that they did the same in '08. They took the mass discontent, translated it into an electoral victory, and then continued the policies that benefitte the 1% at the expense of the rest of us.

You've got to choose a side. Neither bourgeoisie party is actually on the side of the working class, so they're irrevelent to this issue. So you've got to choose whose side you're on, the capitalist system or the working class. BTW, I'm not saying not vote for Dems. But I am saying that the Dems won't fix that list of capitalist abuses put out by the General Assembly of NYC. Only organized militant working class actions that interfere with the profits of the capitalists has any chance of working.

What you call a demagogic battle, I call a warning against being co-opted based on history. Are you going to ignore the advice of people and groups that have studied this battle and FOUGHT this battle for years and decades? There IS some value in experience and study. Marxists, like wsws, HAS the historical knowledge and the experience. Ignore it at your peril.

[stevenleser]

20. If you and wsws.org aren't interested in being part of what OWS is trying to do, I guess that is up

to you. OWS is saying, this is how we see it, its about whether you support the 99%'ers.

It's not about fighting old battles between different groups on the left. I realize that this is very much entrenched behavior among some groups and some may not be able to escape that old reality. I'm moving beyond it. I'm not going to vote for someone of any party that does not support pro 99% policies. I'm not going to hold old grudges against any left group.

[socialist_n_TN]

31. Well I think that's the biggest critique that

the more militant working class groups have about OWS. What exactly IS OWS trying to do? They released a laundry list of grievences covering the abuses by the majority of economic sectors in the current system and didn't even take the next logical step of naming the beast. Just a cursory glance at the list of abuses should tell any logical person that it's the SYSTEM that's rotten to the core and not just "bad individuals" and "bad companies". Yet they didn't even call out system. I'm a Marxist and I have no problem calling a spade a shovel. It's called capitalism.

There are several questions that are raised by this. Does OWS want these abuses rectified or not? How far are they willing to go to get these abuses rectified? Do they think that they're immune to the classic tactics of co-option that the owners have used since the existence of capitalism?

It's not just a question of supporting the 99%ers, it's HOW you're going to support the 99%ers. Of course, Marxists are going to support the 99%ers. When everybody was ga-ga over Saint Ronnie and his deregulatory, trickle down, free market mania, we saw where this would lead. When Bubba was dismantling welfare and instituting free trade agreements, we saw where it was leading. For a Marxist it's our raison d'etre. We KNOW, at least as a general rule, what we want for the 99%ers and how to achieve it. We know it from an objective historical process that's the building block of our world viewpoint. Does OWS?

[starroute]

17. I read the WSWS article earlier, and it did raise some doubts in my mind

Mainly about the unions. Maybe it's the 1960s in me -- but I tend to see unions as part of the establishment and as very used to having their say with the Democratic Party, and that gives a certain plausibility to the suggestion that they might see OWS as something they could co-opt.

One of the strengths of OWS so far is that it has been fairly small and very compact and has been able to handle all its media and other operations in-house. This means that anybody who wants to associate their name with OWS has to go to them, rather than the other way round, and subordinate themselves to the direction OWS is setting.

It's when a movement is trying to grow that it becomes susceptible to the siren song of more established groups saying, "Oh, let us handle that stuff for you." But as long as the hackers and creative people of OWS are determined to do everything themselves, I don't see any danger in them associating with outside groups of any sort.

[socialist_n_TN]

18. Well here's the deal, IMO

The unions are part of the current system, so when push comes to shove they, and ESPECIALLY the leadership of the unions, won't support anything that will truly change the system. HOwever, they are all the working class has at the present time, so they deserve support for that reason alone. And in addition, the general membership of unions is usually more revolutionary and militant than the leadership.

But the biggest danger I see is not co-opting by the unions per se, as it is co-opting by the bourgeoisie political parties. That's what historically happens in this country. People think they can make big changes using the political system, so they begin to concentrate there and ignore the economic basis of politics and power.

Right now, they've put the focus on Wall Street and the economic system. If it's co-opted by the politicians of EITHER party, the focus goes back to elections and off Wall Street. And the capitalists win again.

[stevenleser]

19. The focus has to be on elections, but not in the way you fear.

Candidates have to come out and say whether they support the 99% or the 1% and they have to back that up by the policies they intend to support.

I have a feeling this election season, if you have an election where there is a Dem, a Repug and lets say, a Green, and only the Green shows a willingness to fight for the 99% policywise, they will win this time with OWS at their backs.

Before it comes to that, I think a lot of Democratic party nominees and candidates for the Democratic nomination for legislature and congress/senate will see that and come around to where we want them to be.

[eridani]

24. The Wellstone Triangle

Sometimes I despair of ever seeing a good positive feedback loop between electoral politics and social movements. So many Dems care about nothing except winning elections as the be all and end all of politics, and so many issue and community groups refuse participation in electoral politics at all.

I chatted with a Socialist Alternative activist after a health care forum, and he gave me the usual rap about don't work for anyone in the system, but build a third party. I asked him what precinct he was in. He sez "the 43rd." I said "That isn't your precinct--that's your state legislative district." He nad no clue about his precinct boundaries. I told him that in Seattle, with precincts containing 300-800 voters, he might find 20 or more in his precinct who would consistently vote a socialist ticket--but only if he bothered to find out who they were and bug them about it on a yearly basis, given that none of them would give a rat's ass about his paper or attending his meetings. He had no interest in doing anything like this, so anything he says about "party building" is just a bunch of bullshit. Most socialists and greens are like that--they know little and could care less about regular contact with voters who aren't policy wonks.

[socialist_n_TN]

32. When you move the focus off of Wall Street

and into the politics RE: Dem or Republican, you take a step backwards. The MAIN positive I see coming out of OWS to this point is the very fact that they've made the connection between economics, politics, and power and they've pointed out the nexus OF that connection, which is the economic power of Wall Street.

When the focus is changed from Wall Street to elections or to one political party, it becomes a team sport. YAA Dems!!! The problem is that the BEST Democrat nowdays is a democratic socialist and not even a Democrat. MOST of the Dem party wants nothing to do with curbing the power of Wall Street and the ownership class. Which means that nothing is going to change EVEN WITH TEAM "D" IN CONTROL OF GOVERNMENT.

[truedelphi]

34. The Best Democratic candidates out there are

Dead.

Rest in peace, Mr Wellstone.

Rest in peace, John Kennedy Jr.




Happy Birthday, John!

[eridani]

39. Or are just now getting old enough to vote

We have a long wait and a lot of work if one of them is to ever become president.

[truedelphi]

43. Great retort!

:thumbsup:

[eridani]

38. I'm strongly in favor of walking and chewing gum at the same time

How about you? Right now I'm phonebanking for a local hospital commission candidate in an election which will decide whether WA State's first public hospital will stay public or be sold off. I'm also dropping by Occupy Seattle--they are having specific programs and marches all the time.

Team D will change things only if the progressive caucus gets larger than 90. And speaking of Bernie, he got where he is today by running for local offices, starting in 1969 or thereabouts. If more of us on the left had done the same thing, we might not be in the mess we are in right now. The year to have begun work on having an economic populist for president would have been 1976.

[socialist_n_TN]

44. Yep no prob for me doing that.......

I'll be at an event today. Are you so confident that the rest of the country can too?

Vote, vote early and vote often! I just don't think that it's going to do much good because it's the CANDIDATES that are lacking. At least in my area. Team D only runs corporatists nowdays who think it's OK for gays to get married. Sometimes. I'll still do it though.

I just think that, until the interrelationship of economics, politics, and power seeps DEEPLY into the consciousness of the average, non-political American, the focus needs to stay on the REAL bosses on Wall Street.

[FarLeftFist]

12. I agree. I mentioned in another thread that the Socialist Party probably most closely identifies

With this movement. What I mean by co-opt is that no one political party created this event but alot are trying to claim it. Even the Ron Paul crowd. Above all this movement is about expanding democracy.

[socialist_n_TN]

14. Oh I agree about the co-opting part

This has gotten popular enough, quick enough so that a lot of libertarian types are going to try and claim it for it's own because of some surface similiarities on some issues. The attempt WILL be made at co-opting by several groups. I wouldn't even be surprised if the 1% tried to co-opt it. Oh yeah, and I've already seen some signs by some of the usual suspects on here that lead me to believe that they'll try to cut out the folks that HAVE been fighting this battle for the longest time, i.e., the socialists, Marxists, Communists, and communists.

The fact is that the 99% thing works pretty well as an agitational slogan, but as a real strategy to change things, it ain't gonna work. IF OWS wants to get it's list of abuses remedied, they won't get it done by working with people who carry the water for the 1%. Even if those water carriers are PART of the 99%.

There's only one way to clean up this mess and wsws, although wrong in some particulars, are closer to the solution than Ron Paul and the Teabaggers are. At least they're not capitalist toadies.

[readmoreoften]

21. I have problems with the SEP (wsws) but I will defend them from red-baiting.

I have problems with the Socialist Equality Party. Their platforms are almost identical to the International Socialist Organization's, but because the ISO has more members and a more nuanced way of talking to people, they baselessly attack them in article after article. They are strident and sectarian and moralistic. But regardless, I will defend them from attack because we need all manner of left parties and organizations out there. The ISO and Kasama are the sanest and most intelligent and actually have good ideas, but I will still argue against any red-baiting of SEP.

[socialist_n_TN]

28. As will I. I'm of a much more militant strain of

Trotskyism than is wsws (from what little I've seen of wsws anyway), but I will defend them also from Red Scare tactics. Hell, I'll defend the Stalinists from Red Scare tactics.

It just really bothered me that an analysis from people who are experienced in fighting this fight AND studying this fight, are summarily dismissed because it's an "old paradigm" and apparently not applicable to this fight per some. That's bullshit. This fight IS right in the Marxist wheelhouse and you dismiss their advice to the peril of the whole movement.

Warning about co-option by bourgeois elements is not an old paradigm, it is what WILL happen if it's not fought off. THAT is an objective lesson of history. And how can this attempt at co-opting be fought, if these political neophytes aren't warned that it's coming?

[TBF]

27. People before profits - absolutely. nt

[Lorien]

29. Wrong phrasing; do you support policies which benefit EVERYONE and NOT JUST

the wealthiest 1%. Policies that clean up our environment, slow climate change, improve our infrastructure, educate the general population, ensure that basic needs are met for all do, in fact, benefit the rich as well...they simply don't understand that they do indeed benefit from a healthier planet and society, just not in a way that's reflected in their portfolios.

[justiceischeap]

30. Exactly!

AS much as it irks me at times to say this, but this is the UNITED states and policies should benefit EVERYONE. They don't anymore and killing policies that support folks within the 99% is the war that the Republicans seem to be waging (and we know that the majority of the 1% back Republicans).

There's this bit in the Constitution (a document it seems the 1% want to abolish) that says ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL. It's hard for a politician these days to subscribe to that point of view because so many of them are in the 1% club.

[Kaleko]

36. Agreed. A positive phrasing will always be more uplifting

and therefore catch on.

[AntiFascist]

35. Precisely....

when the Koch Brothers squat down and say "Lick My Balls!" the teabaggers are right there to do their bidding.

[johnnyrocket]

42. I like it. If the message is honed to simple fairness, the counter-argument looks stupid...

...and falls apart. The OWS movement is about a system that is fair, and treats all parties in the system the same.

Are you for fairness, or are you for a skewed system that has no fair rules???