Out of Occupy, a New Populist Political Party Forms

[WhoIsNumberNone]

Carl Gibson, co-founder of U.S. Uncut, is joining with other Occupy Wall Street organizers to launch a new populist political party. While more details (including the name of the party and the identities of other key organizers) will be available when the group launches on March 20, the party will be explicitly anti-capitalist.

Says Gibson: "A new party that actively opposes capitalism and unites people around the basic ideas of meeting human needs would be widely respected and immediately acknowledged. This new party could stand apart from the two corporate-owned parties by refusing to take campaign donations from corporations, banks and developers, standing up for the rights of immigrants and indigenous people, calling for sustainable energy and development, making education for all a top priority, and believing in universal access to healthcare as a human right. While it would take time, focusing on building power first at the local and county level is the surest way to make lasting change."

In this interview with Resistance Report host Dennis Trainor, Jr., Gibson acknowledged that the Green Party is already working along a parallel path, but feels his (soon to be launched) party will do a better job of engaging young people and focusing on local politics as a way to build power.

[JNelson6563]

1. Not to mention Greens take Rethug money.

That's another way to be different from them.

Julie

[Maedhros]

4. Why single out the Greens for taking dirty money?

http://www.greenparty.org/PA_funding.php

Progressives around the country were shocked to hear that Carl Romanelli is running as the Green Party candidate for the US Senate from Pennsylvania with over 99% funding from the Republicans. The howl has gone up that the Greens are letting themselves be used by the Republican Party to keep a progressive Democrat from being elected.

But a closer look reveals a very different picture. The actions of the Green Party of PA candidate, though quite bad, are much less so than actions that the Democratic Party routinely takes each election. In fact, the Democratic Party should own up to the blame it bears for the current electoral crisis in PA.

Let's not beat around the bush. Getting on the ballot with 99% dirty money is a bad thing to do. The GP of PA should have given it back and said, "No thanks, we would rather not get on the ballot than do it with the funding of racist, anti-working class war criminals."

But this raises the question, Should all dirty money be returned? Democratic Party hacks have often been heard oinking and squealing that this Green got so many hundreds of dollars or Ralph Nader got so many thousands of dollars from GOP or war-monger doners.

Meantime, the Democratic Party pockets tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands and millions of dollars from its own dirty money sources. Many of the same corporate criminals who finance the RP also finance the Democratic Party and the Dems accepts this as "part of politics." But will those who oink and grunt so vociferously at the Green Party please answer this question: If it is bad for a Green to accept $1000 of dirty money, would it not be 1000 times as bad for a Democrat to accept $100,000 of dirty money?

Asking this of the Democratic apologists is met with a cold silence, or, more often changing the topic. They simply refuse to acknowledge that the corporations know that they have a good deal buying off both parties because they will be well served whichever one wins.

[pnwmom]

12. When have the Dems taken money from the Rethugs? That's shocking news.

And there's not a bit of proof of that in the post.

[cprise]

18. From individuals registered as Republicans? Are you kidding me??

How about from extremely harmful corporations? From Libertarians? From Scientologists?

You prove to us that Dems do NOT accept any of that money.

Get off that ridiculous high horse. Dems don't get to socially segregate Greens or any other party.

[rhett o rick]

40. Your question is misleading. The post never says what you portray.

The post says this: "the Democratic Party pockets tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands and millions of dollars from its own dirty money sources. Many of the same corporate criminals who finance the RP also finance the Democratic Party..."

These are your words: "When have the Dems taken money from the Rethugs? That's shocking news." It's much easier to argue against something that you make up than what others say. "And there's not a bit of proof of that in the post." Of course not, because you made it up.

The point of the post was that some or many Democrats accept money from the same sources that fund the Republicans.

[JNelson6563]

27. Ok, I will type slower so you can follow along...

I'm not talking about money in politics, that is a whole other can of worms. I for one want to see publicly funded elections and take money out of the equation.

With that said, did I say anything about other monies Greens may be taking? No because in politics you have to have lots of money to compete. Having been in the trenches as long as I was I can tell you it is frustrating.

But taking money from the Rethugs is uniquely evil. Why? Well, wait a minute here...aren't the Greens suppose to be so much better than the Dems who are dirty and exactly the same as Rethugs? Of course if that were the case would the Rethugs be so willing to use the Greens as useful idiots to help them beat the Dems?

Yeah, taking money from the supposed enemy party is exactly the same as taking corporate money or whatever.

Oh but your big, bad scary article HAS to take that intellectually dishonest approach so it can do that high horse self-righteous bit...yeah, Dems want to change the subject. lolz You Green defenders always cause me to get the urge to point and laugh when you get all bad-ass. Silly whores=Greens.

lololololololol

Julie

[Maedhros]

29. I understand your logic perfectly. [n/t]

[BodieTown]

2. Wrong Approach

Here's the cringe-worthy thing Gibson said:

He aligned the Green Party with the "aging hippie crowd" as opposed to the "young radical revolutionary crowd".

Nice divide and conquer strategy. The "divide" part applies to the left; the conquer part applies to the right.

Here's a heads up for you, Carl: people of all ages want a party that meets human needs, provides universal healthcare, and takes care of everybody.

He struck me as being exclusive rather than inclusive.

[cheapdate]

10. Well put.

I think that nothing will succeed without forming alliances, building consensus, and winning some kind of institutional support.

"Where in America are there communities where the "young radical revolutionary crowd" is a significant voting block? Maybe there are a few such places, but not many."

Exactly right.

[TomClash]

15. It's true

You don't build anything good by excluding people, no matter person's the age, race, gender, etc.

Well done.

[MrMickeysMom]

21. I don't know… haven't listened or watch this yet, but what if there is a strategy...

I happen to be one of those "hippies" and aging… well.. I'm in better shape at age 60 than people 20 years younger…

Regardless of that stigma, I can see that the need exists to capture the millennia crowd and post millennias. The D's and and R's who are caught up in a failed capitalistic neo liberal neocon nightmare are NOT loving the populous and now that they all realize they are also being listened in on, who do they love the most? Why, their fat golden parachuets from the fray. I suppose the Green Party was a good idea, but something has to be learned from that.

So, that leaves us with … "what's an aging and wise child of the 60's to do?" One vision of mine is to have a mechanism to reach across generations coming into this mess who instinctively know the failed experiment of capitalism (at least unfettered capitalism). If you care enough about the future, you prepare for it anyway you can.

My two cents..

[Jim Lane]

30. I agree with you, but the Greens are hardly in a position to denounce divide-and-conquer

A new Occupy-based party would be a bad idea, because it would pull votes from the Democrats and help elect Republicans -- but the silver lining would be that it would pull votes from the Greens.

I look forward eagerly to the Green Party press release bemoaning the way this upstart party is dividing a limited pool of voters and thereby actually helping the other side. I'll even make my first-ever donation to the Greens if I can earmark it for printing fliers in which they'll point out the electoral folly of a divide-and-be-conquered approach.

[hfojvt]

45. the whole point of a third party from the left

is to divide and conquer

Divide the Democrats into DLC and centrists and let the Republicans conquer.

Here's a hint to the clueless idiot. You have these people who want to run for office with this populist message that is gonna win elections? Let them run in the Democratic Primary.

But, "oh noes" the cry goes up "they won't be able to defeat the Democratic machine."

So, if they cannot defeat the tiny little Democratic machine, they are somehow though, gonna go into November and defeat the big bad Republican machine?

Or are they just gonna pull a Nader?

[OilemFirchen]

3. ... "refusing to take campaign donations from corporations"

Does this include all incorporated 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4)'s?

That would eliminate, for starters, the ACLU Foundation and the ACLU.

Good luck with that!

[PatrynXX]

5. nothing wrong with capitalism

it's that Republicans aren't using capitalism . Using something else but it's not Capitalism

[pasto76]

6. its just greed

[BodieTown]

8. That's right...it's unregulated Kochism...

Laws are written by corporate lobbyists for corporate interests. See ALEC.

Taxpayers fund corporate welfare, corporate losses, profitized social programs that benefit corporations, and an economy based on relentless wars-for-profit.

And it's all enabled by a Supreme Court of political, right-wing hacks in black robes who declared that non-human legal entities are persons and that money is speech--and neither party has done a thing to reverse any of this.

We're on the road to full-fledged fascism, when we should be on the road back to rigorously regulated capitalism.

[Maineman]

44. I have just read every post in this thread, and this is the one that I buy into the most.

Unregulated Kochism is the primary problem. Capitalism in the absence of strong regulation is unregulated greed. What could possibly go wrong with that???

[grahamhgreen]

34. Except the golden rule, "he who has the gold, rules"

[pasto76]

7. "explicitly anti capitalist"

wow. Any business owner, anywhere, is on their list?

what about contractors who choose to sign collective bargaining agreements with a union? I work for a contractor last 4 years who, of their own free will, signed our CBA. Yes they are in this to make a profit, but you know, they treat us pretty damn well.

hate to see them opposed by a 'populist' political party

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

11. When the revolution comes...

he sounds like he won't be up against the wall.

I imagine they're far more focused on opposing the multinationals and megacorporations that are spending millions on lobbyists. I would guess your contractor will have time to retire long before the US ever moves completely away from capitalism. And the rest of us will be long dead as well.

[grahamhgreen]

35. Capitalist are people who make money from capital.

[jtuck004]

9. The latest generation is more accepting of alternatives to what we have, understandably,

than previous ones who were trained to think otherwise, I think their mission as stated, however, will have many people voting with their fingers, kinda like in the Occupy encampments, but in a way he didn't expect.

An association of cooperatives who train and use capitalism to their and the community's advantage could resonate with people that have the money and power to become a force.

His idea sounds more like Eugene Debs, who averaged around 2% of the vote, except for one good year where he more or less doubled it.

[pnwmom]

13. Divide and conquer. I'm sure many Rethugs will be thrilled about this.

Since we don't have a parliamentary system of government, a third party, drawing from progressives, will just make it easier for the Rethugs to win.

[1000words]

14. Occupy rejected "isms" and politics, in general.

To use their involvement as a measure of credibility is contradictory.

Good luck to them.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

16. Anyone who recommends this thread should leave the D.U.

The Democratic Underground is not for yet another worthless spoiler party designed to throw elections to Republicans.
The Democratic Underground is not for a bunch of idiot communists who wish to revive a disastrous 20th century ideology.

The Democratic Underground is for Democrats.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[cprise]

20. I gotta wonder what 'CommunistDemocrat' thinks about it. n/t

[MrMickeysMom]

23. Man, what an oxymoron...

Sounds like you're supposed to be posting to "Conservative Democratic Underground"

[ConservativeDemocrat]

42. There are more Conservative Democrats than Very Liberal Democrats in the party

Just FYI.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[Maedhros]

43. Too many [n/t]

[stillwaiting]

46. Yes, our nation is run under conservative economic policy no matter which party has control.

It's been this way for several decades. It's simply a matter of degree (conservative or far-right conservative).

It's been an astounding success for the 1%.

Conservative economic policy, trickle-down economics, free-trade agreements, etc. have NOT been beneficial to the average American.

Clearly, we need more conservative economic policy to be implemented, don't we?

[ConservativeDemocrat]

47. Actually, I wouldn't be a Democrat if I thought the nation needed to go to the right

I've remarked on this at length in other posts, so I won't reiterate it. However, I will say that communism clearly doesn't work. All it has ever led to is authoritarianism.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

p.s. Here's a hint as to my views. Do you think a *real* conservative would be in favor of the hundreds of billions of dollars of corporate welfare, and laws specifically designed to benefit them while harming the middle class, that we presently give to overwhelmingly profitable corporations?

[MrMickeysMom]

52. Really? How did you determine that?

And, this is a real question.

[1000words]

25. Rec'd ... Add my name to your fantasy purge list.

I'm going to add yours to my ignore.

Now, that's reality.

[Democracyinkind]

31. Recs are not necessarily endorsments of individual content.

But I agree that there is a certain type of poster on DU that would be better served by posting on other sites.

[deutsey]

32. Can we have nice show trials first before they're purged? n/t

[grahamhgreen]

36. We'd be better off to endorse their platform.

[hootinholler]

41. I wasn't going to rec it

But now I will just as a fuck you.

[WillyT]

50. Thanks For The Tip... Kicked, And Recommended !!!

[wyldwolf]

17. and the best thing is during election cycles no one will be able to openly support them here. :)

Last edited Sun Mar 16, 2014, 08:57 PM - Edit history (1)

[Tarheel_Dem]

26. +1. Either that, or Skinner will have to ignore his own TOS.

Vote for Democrats.

Winning elections is important — therefore, advocating in favor of Republican nominees or in favor of third-party spoiler candidates that could split the vote and throw an election to our conservative opponents is never permitted on Democratic Underground. But that does not mean that DU members are required to always be completely supportive of Democrats. During the ups-and-downs of politics and policy-making, it is perfectly normal to have mixed feelings about the Democratic officials we worked hard to help elect. When we are not in the heat of election season, members are permitted to post strong criticism or disappointment with our Democratic elected officials, or to express ambivalence about voting for them. In Democratic primaries, members may support whomever they choose. But when general election season begins, DU members must support Democratic nominees (EXCEPT in rare cases where were a non-Democrat is most likely to defeat the conservative alternative, or where there is no possibility of splitting the liberal vote and inadvertently throwing the election to the conservative alternative). For presidential contests, election season begins when both major-party nominees become clear. For non-presidential contests, election season begins on Labor Day. Everyone here on DU needs to work together to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of American government. If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice

[nlkennedy]

19. It's great news...

I'm a leftist who criticized Occupy down the stretch because they were too precious to engage in electoral politics.

If it was part of a long game strategy for the left to rise up in the United States, then I'm all for it.

It needs to be brilliant. It needs to whip the ass of politics by playing politics. Politics that don't lead to people starving and dying -- it's politics that manipulates consciousness into accepting a new voting choice.

[MrMickeysMom]

24. Perhaps this is the evolution of that, nikenedy...

Everything evolves from an idea, right?

[Iliyah]

22. Isn't that a "Black America" symbol?

[Deep13]

28. Workers of the world unite! nt

[deutsey]

33. The New Deal was possible in large part

due to the socialist/labor/communist organizing and agitating that goes back to after the Civil War.

I like what I heard in the interview, but I also think even if an Occupy party doesn't get off the ground, it's important to get the ideas they're calling for out there in the public discourse (the way the original Occupy movement got the "1% vs. 99%" dichotomy in the mainstream dialogue).

If these ideas don't immediately catch on (as I personally hope they do), they can perhaps serve as seeds that will grow into something larger and more powerful later.

[grahamhgreen]

37. +1. We should endorse and work with their platform.

[Springslips]

38. I hate to be a downer.

But until we have a different way to elect members of congress, not the current first-past-the-post representative districts, than no third party will ever be viable. It's called Duverger's law. That's not to mention the fact that both parties have institutionalize themselves into law. We live in a plus-1 Soviet style system.

Changing that is the key in solving our current political problems.

[brooklynboy49]

39. Anti-Capitalist?

I consider myself to be pretty radical in my thinking, but a strict anti-capitalist system just wouldn't work in my opinion.

Sure, in a perfect world we'd live in a society such as that envisioned by Bellamy in Looking Backward. And, who knows, maybe in 50 or 100 or 200 years we'll get there.

But ya gotta temper your idealism with realism. And short-term (i.e., the next 50 years), our goal, a realistic goal, an achievable goal, is a heavily regulated capitalist system that isn't going to dramatically affect the mom and pop grocery store on the corner.

The way to achieve a financially and socially just system is by overhauling the tax laws. Heavily tax big corporations, high wage earners and the church and invest in health care and education.

This is not intended to be an exhaustive dissertation on how I think we should be proceeding short term, but I think it gives you a pretty good idea of what I feel is the best, realistic and achievable way to go. What I am proposing is going to be extremely difficult to achieve. But before you can achieve anything, you have to come to power. And you're not gonna get anybody elected dog catcher with an anti-capitalist platform. Not in the foreseeable future, anyway.

[glinda]

48. Are we dividing the votes again? Just askin'.

Remember Bush.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

49. What is their policy on circumcision?

[BelgianMadCow]

51. For a global spring!

22 march: 15-M / indignados take to the streets again
4th of April: global wave of action announced by Anonymous using Eminem vid

&feature=player_embedded