Occupy the Democratic Party?

[99th_Monkey]

I was not aware of this group or it's website until today, but it's been around for 3-4 years apparently.
http://www.occupydemocrats.com

Here's their "About Us" statement:

Founded in late 2012, Occupy Democrats is the new counterbalance to the Republican Tea Party. The Occupy Movement changed the national conversation around the issue of class and inequality, but unlike the Tea Party, it failed to achieve legislative victories. Our aim is to create a more equal society for all by working with progressives, President Obama & the Democratic Party! Our mission is to Occupy Democrats on Nov.4th, 2014 AND BEYOND by voting in a LANDSLIDE of progressive Democratic candidates! While the right–wing Tea Party has an entire caucus in Congress ruthlessly pursuing its extreme agenda, the Occupy movement has yet to produce even a single congressperson. Occupy Democrats is a new and growing MOVEMENT dedicated to changing that! Let’s give the Tea Party the boot — for good! — by electing a slate of newly-energized progressives to Congress. Working through the democratic process, We The People will rise up to give President Obama and other progressive Democrats a Congress that will work with them to grow the economy, create jobs, promote fairness and fight inequality, and get money OUT of politics!

Is anyone else on DU aware of this group? Is this authentically an OWS-based group, or a brainchild of 3rd Wayers to avoid progressive third-party organizing? The reason I ask this is that it also says this on their "About Us" page:

***WE ADVOCATE WORKING WITH DEMOCRATS, NOT THIRD PARTIES, TO FIGHT SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC INEQUALITY, AND WE LOVE, SUPPORT, RESPECT, AND ADMIRE PRESIDENT OBAMA***

I'd love to hear from all you DU Progressives if you know anything about this Occupy Democrats effort.

[marym625]

1. doesn't sound like any Occupy I'm familiar with

[RobertEarl]

2. I told my group

That what I did in previous years was Occupy the party's local office. It was fun and helped Obama get elected.

Of course some of them there local occupy wannabes were shocked that any body could actually occupy anything. I look for them to get their shit together one day. Not holding my breath......

[sabrina 1]

17. The Occupy movement was one of the most successful social movements in recent times. Far e

exceeding its own goals, which were relatively modest, it has spread around the world.

It has changed the dialogue on Wall St, placing into the language of everyday people AND politicians, phrases that immediately highlight the issues they were there to get attention for.

Even they were surprised by their own enormous success.

So frightened of this rapidly spreading movement across the nation and the world, those in power sent out the 'troops' with the goal of a brutal crackdown that shocked the world.

Not intending to be around for more than two weeks at most, in ONE city, the movement has now moved to a new phase, brutal government crackdowns tend to get the attention of even more people.

Right wingers hate OWS, naturally, since they are a huge threat to the Oligarchs, Wall St and the war machine they so love.

But that only confirms their success.

[U4ikLefty]

19. Thank you Sabrina.

I was involved in Occupy L.A. and Occupy energized a whole new generation of activist that are now making change around the world. I am proud to have been involved...it was such a great time. Many things were learned & shared in those days that activists will carry for the rest of their lives.

[sabrina 1]

27. I am so proud of all those who were involved, thank you! What was truly amazing was how it simply

exploded across the nation. It showed how needed it was given the absence of support for ordinary working people and students, the poor, disabled, hungry children there has been from those elected to represent all of the people. Wall St's influence, it's failures, corruption and then reward for its massive collapse of the world's economies, seem to preoccupy those who should have been more concerned about the VICTIMS of that corruption.

OWS focused on something people were angry about but had no outlet to express their concerns.

Good for you for being there. It was a historical moment to see so many people take to the streets and stay there so they could not be ignored anymore.

[RobertEarl]

41. Yes Occupy US was/is successful

Just not my local group. They were not true Occupiers, they were mere wannabes.

I suggested on my last days there that they donate all the funds raised to OWS. Went back to the party office after that.

The OP is about Occupying (D) party offices and that is a grand idea. Been there, done that; it works!

[F4lconF16]

8. Yeah, and it doesn't sound good to me, either.

The Democratic party has a very strong history of deradicalizing movements, which in turn hurts the chances of change. They did it to Occupy, they've done it in the past, and they're doing it by offering jobs and NGO funding to Black Lives Matter leaders right now. Pisses me off.

[LiberalElite]

3. I can only say I've heard of them. nt

[99th_Monkey]

6. It seems like a cool idea to me.

But I'd like to know it's for reals, and not a 3rd Way Stalking Horse.

[LiberalElite]

7. Yeah - sounds like

a good idea to me too but I didn't look further. (yet)

[PeteSelman]

4. I tried to get this going when OWS was going strong.

99% of the people down there wouldn't hear of it. They insisted that it wasn't a political movement, that the machine itself is corrupt and we need a new sharing system of government which is absolutely ridiculous.

When I tried to use the human mic they wouldn't repeat my words once it became clear my intentions were to get occupy candidates to run.

I'm glad that these people are finally figured it out but this should've been done immediately after the movrment was formed.

They're yesterday's news now, nobody cares anymore.

[F4lconF16]

10. I think you're dead wrong.

99% of the people down there wouldn't hear of it. They insisted that it wasn't a political movement, that the machine itself is corrupt and we need a new sharing system of government which is absolutely ridiculous.

They're absolutely right. Capitalism is mandated to fail by the laws of capitalism itself. It will not last--we're seeing it destroy itself before our eyes right now. We need a new economy where the workers own the means of production, which, at least for me, means advocating for socialism.

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/apr/13/occupy-right-capitalism-failed-world-french-economist-thomas-piketty

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12775392

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sara-robinson/capitalism-has-failed-5-b_b_1546120.html

http://www.levyinstitute.org/publications/why-capitalism-fails-the-man-who-saw-the-meltdown-coming-had-another-troubling-insight-it-will-happen-again

And there is much, much more. I highly suggest reading some of Lenin, Marx, Engels, Trotsky, and Luxembourg for a good intro. Looking at things from a modern perspective, Thomas Piketty wrote a brilliant book called "Capital in the 21st Century". Do your research--capitalism doesn't work.

[PeteSelman]

12. It's completely unrealistic to think that's going to happen.

And capitalism is just fine when properly regulated and offset with a healthy dose of socialism. See the late 1940's to the early 1980's.

We should have moved to take over the Democratic Party when the irons were hot. Working within the system to change it works just fine. Just look at what the religious right and the baggers have done.

This country is never going to go the way of Karl Marx.

[F4lconF16]

13. Read the links I provided.

Study your economic theory. Piketty is probably the best if you don't like the idea of Marx and Engels. Capitalism doesn't work.

I don't imagine I'm going to convince you of anything, so I'm not going to try here. But I do want to say that things weren't nearly as nice in the 1940's to the 1980's as people here want to believe. There has always been a desperately poor class underfoot that we conveniently forget about, and unfortunately, as long as we are in a capitalist system, that is not going to change. Same goes for racism, sexism, etc.: it's mandated by capitalism. The incredibly balanced intricacies of oppression in the American political and economic system are here to stay, because that's what maximizes profit. As long as your system involves oppression of one group for another's gain (the essence of capitalism), you will continue to see those issues.

Have a nice day.

[Blanks]

45. Capitalism with a huge dose of socialism...

Seems to have worked better than pure socialism. At least the Soviet Union makes it look that way.

Any economic system that allows those at the top to allocate resources will fail. Sure, it will do OK under good leadership, but then you will have either a dictatorship or a monarchy, if you decide to keep that leadership in the family.

What I remember hearing about the failings of the Soviet Union is that there was no incentive for workers because the goods were not distributed fairly. 'Each according to his need, each according to his ability' kind of sucks for people without much need but lots of ability.

I'm sure socialism (or communism) works fine as long as some competition in the marketplace is maintained in the system. As far as I'm concerned that's the only thing capitalism brings to the table. Capitalism isn't all bad, it is unregulated capitalism that is bad.

[F4lconF16]

46. The Soviet Union was absolutely nothing like what Marx or Engels proposed.

That was not a worker owned society; that was a state-owned, centrally planned, brutal dictatorship. There has never been a truly socialistic government other than in small communities and for temporary periods of time during upheavals. Unfortunately, the time has not been right yet--there were are number of conditions that Marx and others prescribed. I'm nearing the end of my second shift today, and I'm spacing on concrete examples of those conditions, so please forgive me. However, in essence, socialism has never truly been tried, and where it was tried in small scale societies, it was a resounding success until the lack of proper conditions caused collapse internally or where outside forces caused collapse externally.

"To each according to his need, from each according to his ability" actually works rather well in a democratically governed society where all people hold equality. This is the central difference between the supposedly communist state of the Soviet Union, and the communist society proposed by Marx: there was no equality in the Soviet Union. Instead, a heavily corrupt elite ruled over a huge serf class. Remember that Russia was the closest modern example of the feudal/serf system before the revolution--that didn't change much when Stalin came to power. Brutal poverty and extremely top-heavy society were the product of a number of factors, but socialism was not one of them. That society was more reminiscent of a fascist dictatorship in many ways, in my opinion.

Socialism does not necessarily need competition, at least in the same way we have competition under capitalism. Under socialism, because the workers own the methods of production, there is not the constant pressure to drive down wages and maximize profit. The outputs from work are distributed democratically, and there is a relatively equal distribution that arises because of that. Hell, I'd like to see a return to a private property-less society, but I can't see that ever happening in my lifetime.

There's a lot more to all of this, of course, but I'm kinda struggling to focus and stay awake at this point. That, and my knowledge of these systems is still rather limited--I've only read a few of the original texts from the founders of these and a fair bit of modern economic analysis. My theoretical knowledge pales in comparison to that of socialists I know who have dedicated decades of their lives to the idea. If you ever get the chance, go listen to someone who really knows what they're talking about speak--they will be able to make this case to you far more convincingly and much more clearly than I currently am. Here's an excellent starter if you want to read it: http://www.internationalsocialist.org/pdfs/WhereWeStandPamphlet.pdf . That's a good summary of where I'm at politically right now (though it needs to be re-written badly, imo--the sentence structure and length could really be improved). It's a summary of the International Socialist Organization's stances on many of our major issues. It doesn't really get into socialist theory that heavily, though. You'll need to do more reading to really understand what a final socialist society might take shape as.

[Blanks]

49. Because the Soviet Union is the most well known...

Example of socialism, whether it was a good model or not, takes major points away from socialism.

It gives people something to point to and say "see socialism doesn't work". I know it was flawed and not a good example of what socialism is supposed to be, but it called itself socialism right up to its dying breath.

A capitalists best friend.

[jeff47]

50. That's because what they proposed is impossible on a national scale.

Communism works in commune-sized pieces. It does not scale up.

Over and over again, from 5,000 BC to present day, it has been tried. And it worked only while the group was relatively small. Get up to city size or larger, and it breaks down. There's enough people in groups with different priorities that equality can't be maintained. The groups battle each other, either rhetorically or violently, resulting in one group oppressing another. The oppressed group is no longer being served, and they either leave or are forced into compliance.

This leads to socialists claiming "no true Scotsman" at the failures, not understanding that their system is as unworkable as Rand's. Both can be done by true believers in small groups, but utterly fail at scale.

What works is a strong mix of the two - capitalism with its "rough edges" softened by a large quantity of socialism.

[F4lconF16]

57. I disagree.

From the link I provided earlier:

Important in understanding Marxism is understand- ing what it is not. Distortion upon lie upon distortion have been piled so high that genuine Marxism is now buried underneath a pile of rubbish. There are now so many people with diametrically opposed ideas who nev- ertheless claim to be Marxists that the term has become almost meaningless.

So, for example, Engels looked at the Paris Commune of 1871, where the government consisted of directly elected, instantly recallable delegates paid no more than a workers’ wage, and called it a workers’ government. Joseph Stalin identified the top-down, one-party bureau- cratic monolith he established in Russia in the 1930s as a workers’ government. Both cannot be right. Put starkly, the question is this: Is Marxism the liberation of human- ity from class and national oppression, from state tyranny and from want; or is it the gulag, rationing, slave labor camps and an ubiquitous secret police? Of course, in order to discredit Marxism, there are de- fenders of capitalism who would say that the one led to the other—that all revolutions lead to tyranny.

There are many instances in history where ideas have been twisted and distorted to disguise entirely different realities or practices. After all, both Tom Paine—a true democrat who fought against kings and privilege—and George W. Bush profess to be advocates of democracy and freedom. There is a yawning gulf between Marxism as a set of ideas about how to fight and win a better society (i.e., as a guide to action), and the pseudo-Marxist state ideologies of Stalin’s Russia and Mao’s China, which were used to paper over inequality and justify societies in which ex- ploitation and oppression still existed.

In the early 1920s, Lenin warned in a debate on na- tionalism that it was important for socialists not to paint national movements in “communist colors.” With the rise of Stalinism and the contortion of Marxism into an ideology of state-led development rather than working- class emancipation, this is precisely what happened. A whole series of national revolutions developed that challenged colonial domination in the name of socialism, but which established new states modeled on the Soviet Union—a society where workers had lost power by the end of the 1920s.

In his pamphlet Principles of Communism, Frederick Engels describes communism as “the doctrine of the con- ditions of the liberation of the proletariat”—or in more modern terms, the working class. Marx and Engels there- fore rejected all “socialisms” or radical politics that advo- cated the substitution of some other individual, group or class for the self-activity of the working class. “For almost 40 years,” Marx and Engels wrote, “we have emphasized that the class struggle is the immediate motive force of history and, in particular, that the class struggle between bourgeoisie and proletariat is the great lever of modern social revolution; hence we cannot possi- bly cooperate with men who seek to eliminate that class struggle from the movement.

“At the founding of the International, we expressly for- mulated the battle cry: The emancipation of the working class must be achieved by the working class itself. Hence we cannot cooperate with men who say openly that the workers are too uneducated to emancipate themselves, and must first be emancipated from above by philan- thropic members of the upper and lower middle classes.”

Hence socialism is not a movement of social legisla- tion; nor is it a movement in which a few hundred or even several thousand armed guerrillas liberate the masses on their behalf, while the masses play either a purely pas- sive or merely supportive role; and it most emphatically is not the work of great leaders acting as conductors, waving their batons.

The real Marxist tradition rejects the identification of socialism with the actions of small minorities, with the es- tablishment of one-party state bureaucracies, or with the gradualist approach that asks the working class to put its faith in elected officials and in congresses and parlia- ments. Ordinary people must themselves organize and fight, creating their own institutions of struggle and of governance.

As Marx and Engels wrote, “Both for the production on a mass scale of this communist consciousness, and for the success of the cause itself, the alteration of men on a mass scale is necessary, an alteration which can only take place in a practical movement, a revolution; this revolu- tion is necessary, therefore, not only because the ruling class cannot be overthrown in any other way, but also be- cause the class overthrowing it can only in a revolution succeed in ridding itself of all the muck of ages and be- come fitted to found society anew."

[jeff47]

58. Yes, and you immediately went to no true Scotsman.

Golly, what a surprise.

It really doesn't matter what Marx and Engels wrote. Just like it really doesn't matter what Rand wrote. Both propose a theory of better governance based on what they think is best.

What is important is how those theories work in the real world. And no one has managed to make communism work on a city scale, much less a national scale.

[F4lconF16]

60. It isn't, though.

It really doesn't matter what Marx and Engels wrote.

That's the whole point of what I'm saying, though--it does matter, because what you're saying is that socialism as proposed by Marx and others doesn't work, and that isn't true. So it's not a no true scotsman fallacy, because Marx certainly would not have agreed with the Soviet system. That isn't what Marxist socialism was. It does matter if you're going to claim I'm committing a fallacy.

Second, Marxian socialism has yet to have to right social conditions to be tried properly. Go read through that whole link I posted. If you had, you'd realize that.

Third, what has been tried has worked on a large, city-wide scale. I'd point you to the Seattle General strike for evidence of that.

Fourth, I've learned not to waste my time arguing with people who refuse to even consider a different economic system then our current one. Goodbye, and have a good evening.

[Maedhros]

21. As long as we, the Progressives, keep internalizing the corporate meme

that socialism is "unrealistic" and "isn't going to happen," then they have won the war without even firing a shot.

[Scootaloo]

28. "And capitalism is just fine when properly regulated and offset with a healthy dose of socialism"

In other words, capitalism isn't just fine.

[99th_Monkey]

22. "We need a new economy where the workers own the means of production", <--YES

Thanks for your contribution to this discussion.

[sabrina 1]

30. You are so wrong. OWS is not a political movement, that was the beauty and success of it.

And that was the POINT, a point that scared the living daylights out of those who have a vested interest in keeping the people divided.

You totally did not understand OWS so not sure why you were there.

The fact that the movement itself is not political, has nothing to do with individuals choosing to run, who to vote for, or any other decision they might make.

And yes, OWS members did run for office.

Now the movement has moved on to the next phase, worldwide and have had so much success in the endeavors they have taken on.

Gandhi and MLK were not political, not into 'Party Politics' either.

The most successful Social Movement, such as OWS which has been hugely successful, do not DIVIDE they UNITE.

Thankfully millions around the world DID 'get' what they represent.

[appalachiablue]

5. I know that OWS helped later with student debt (Strike Debt) that's all. The group had

a very ambitious goal for Nov. 2014 but I never heard anything about it. Odd.

[liberal_at_heart]

36. they did what politicians refused to do, help the middle class and the poor.

They paid off mortgage debt and student debt. You didn't hear much about them because the government shut them down and the media made them look foolish for not wanting to be part of the political machine. But by not being part of the political machine they were able to accomplish things politicians refused to even try to accomplish because the politicians are too busy taking money from the banks and other rich people to even care about real people.

[appalachiablue]

39. What OWS created was effective, inspiring & reached people all over the world.

The political establishment and the banks are so entrenched that little can be done except to continue to educate, organize and pressure unless and until there's another major economic crash which there will be and even then there's no guarantee. The system is a 35 year morass, takers gonna take and we're a long way from 1933. Time will tell and conditions must improve. The OWS Strike Debt project was one that I was able to assist.

[U4ikLefty]

9. This is more "Democrat" than "Occupy".

Take it from someone who has actually organized during Occupy.

[F4lconF16]

11. Yup.

De-radicalizing movements is the Democratic Party's responsibility in the political system we have. They serve the elite in a different way than the right wing, but they do it exceedingly effectively. More so, some might argue.

[99th_Monkey]

14. But, but ...

Shouldn't their be room for Occupy in the "Big Tent"? <--It's just a rhetorical question.

Thanks for your post, it's painfully true, yet helpful.

[F4lconF16]

15. Hey man, don't knock the big tent!

It's got room for everybody! The Democrats, the Republicans, the Fascists! Everybody!

Wait, you're a liberal socialist? Goddamn commies... Go get your own tent!

[99th_Monkey]

16. LOL!!!!!

That totally cracked me up..

[Maedhros]

23. The Democratic Party is the ratchet.

The Republican Party cranks policy to the right, then the Democrats hold it in place until the next round of rightward Republican cranking.

[F4lconF16]

24. Bingo.

And it's been that way since the two party system was created in all of it's brilliancy, albeit with different names.

[U4ikLefty]

18. An interseting post from back in the day...

enjoy the similarities: http://www.democraticunderground.com/12522065

[RufusTFirefly]

20. Excellent context

I think you're right on track.

[99th_Monkey]

26. I LOVEed the OWS phenomenon

I got pretty involved my local Occupy Portland. Great memories.

I think that I so much wanted this Occupy Democrat thing to be real & legitimate
that I may have given it too much credence too quickly, proving once again that
"we see what we want to see"

[salib]

25. Yeah, I saw some stuff come across the "Internets" from them

I think it is just stealth mainstream.

Maybe even third way.

Then again, I may be wrong. I thought that about Obama back in 2007 too.

[Cheese Sandwich]

29. Is it just a couple guys running a news blog?

Seems like a decent news blog though. But not clear how it is different than any other liberal news blog.

I don't see any sort of activist angle to their website or "organization".

They seem like nice people though.

[99th_Monkey]

34. yah.

I also saw the site is recruiting writers, which could mean they are open and inclusive, or could mean
it's one or two guys on a shoestring desperate for help.

[blkmusclmachine]

31. ,

,

[Scootaloo]

32. It's pretty plainly an attempt to co-opt the "occupy" label

Specifically, by Omar Rivero, who was a Democratic Candidate for District 118 of the Florida house.

Whether "third way" or not, I'm not sure - but he's definitely not someone who's out to rock the boat too hard.

[99th_Monkey]

33. Thanks for the info. Very helpful to know. eom

[brooklynite]

35. It's not the counterpart of the Tea Party

...because the Tea Party put it energy to work nominating Republicans who agreed with them. Aside from a website, what has this group accomplished?

[99th_Monkey]

37. I think i's become clear that this is just a few mainstream-ish Democrats

running a news blog & hoping to use "occupy" as a drawing card, perhaps
hoping co-opt for themselves some OWS mojo.

[zeemike]

38. I am skeptical...it sounds more like join than occupy.

There is so much deception out there and there seems to be plenty of money for it.

Every movement gets co opted.

[99th_Monkey]

40. Yes, I think that is the consensus on this string. nt

[B Calm]

48. Could be funded by the GOP to divide the democratic party.

Not saying it is, but I'm skeptical too!

[Oilwellian]

42. Follow them on Facebook for a while

and watch the flipping Third Way crap they spew. I followed them for a while and even commented a time or two stating Occupy was neither Democrat nor Republican, and it was so obvious they co-opted the brand. I didn't follow them for long. They made me want to spew. LOL

[99th_Monkey]

43. Perhaps a good note for putting this subject to bed on.

or at least putting myself to bed on.

Thanks for chiming in.

[DeSwiss]

44. !

[Chathamization]

47. There are a number of groups working at (and succeeding in) getting progressive candidates elected.

Democracy for America and Working Families Party for example. Like all groups, they're not perfect and the quality of your local chapter can vary immensely. But if you're interested in getting progressives elected to office, they're probably a good place to start.

[Bluenorthwest]

53. The Congressional Progressive Caucus is the largest Democratic caucus within the Congress

with 69 members.

[randome]

51. "Authentic" is in the biases of the observer.

Instead of 'occupying' or sitting somewhere, they need to run. Replace the Democrats you don't like with better candidates. It's hard work but the alternative is to talk endlessly about how to improve things without bringing about the very change we want.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]

[djean111]

52. This sounds like one of those fake astroturf things -

"***WE ADVOCATE WORKING WITH DEMOCRATS, NOT THIRD PARTIES, TO FIGHT SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC INEQUALITY, AND WE LOVE, SUPPORT, RESPECT, AND ADMIRE PRESIDENT OBAMA***'

"President Obama and other progressive Democrats" - um, Obama is no Progressive.

[MineralMan]

54. Want to Occupy the Democratic Party?

Try showing up at your local Democratic Party organization and participating. Learn how it works. Work. Volunteer. Soon, you'll be in a leadership position, because nobody shows up much and people get tired. Demonstrate that you are willing and there will be plenty of things to occupy your time as you occupy the Party.

What? You don't have time for that? Well, never mind, then. Occupation takes time. Occupation takes energy. Occupation takes hard work. Occupation isn't done on Internet forums. You have to become part of the Party to influence the party. If you're not willing to do that, those who are will represent the Party. They'll choose the candidates. They'll set the goals. If you don't want to be part of that, it's OK. You can just complain about it and say that people should do something.

Want someone else to Occupy the Democratic Party? No problem. They already do.

Discover for yourself. Please! We need people to Occupy the Democratic Party. People who have ideas and energy. What are you waiting for? You can help Occupy the Democratic Party, starting right now.

[99th_Monkey]

55. +10 ~nt~

[U4ikLefty]

56. Occupy for Hillary!!1!11!

I think NOT.

[liberal_at_heart]

59. I think I would rather visit the Socialist Progressive group.

I haven't visited yet, but it definitely sounds interesting.