General debate: Do YOU think activist groups can ally with a party yet stay true to themselves?

[Ken Burch]

I'm not sure they can, once it's come to formal endorsements.

How much independence of action, in your view, can groups still maintain once they ally with ANY party?
How much control do they end up forfeiting TO that party?

And to what degree, as you see it, are the trade-offs worth it?

Just wanted to put all of this out there for open discussion.

[patrice]

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

then assume any and all situations are static.

[Ken Burch]

5. That's why I included the part about tradeoffs.

n/t.

[patrice]

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

Can a party stay true to itself if it allies with an activist group, say, for example, Movement to Amend?

[Ken Burch]

4. Poltical parties, by themselves, seldom have core values.

Last edited Wed May 2, 2012, 09:22 PM - Edit history (1)

They exist solely to elect their members to office...most of them don't actually care what those people do in office once they get there, so long as it isn't "risky".

They act on the things people MAKE them act on...either through activism or through mass campaign donations.

Look at how radically different the Democratic Party of today is from the party of 1860.

ALL the change in our party came about due to what it was made to do from outside.

If there'd been no mass movements of the workers and the jobless in 1933, for example, FDR would likely have used the same economic policies Grover Cleveland used. He ONLY became the leader we now revere because of pressure from outside and below.

[patrice]

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

value of identifying with Labor? Are you saying the Democratic party doesn't have that core value?

[Ken Burch]

8. depends on the Democrat you're talking about.

Most of the time, our Congressional leadership defers to the "pro-business&quot i.e., antiworker)wing of the party.

The party was MADE to be pro-labor from without in the Thirties. Bill Clinton essentially drove the unions(and the poor)out in the Nineties-and we had no electoral gains at all from his insistence on doing that. President Obama STILL keeps labor at arm's length, even though NOBODY who wants unions to be weak has any progressive values(or if they do, they have them on meaningless side issues like recycling baskets).

[patrice]

12. So the tradeoffs between business activist groups and the Democratic party more recently included

Last edited Wed May 2, 2012, 11:13 PM - Edit history (2)

(a BUNCH of stuff, but what I'm interested in here is) the taming and training of Labor to identify with corporate models, because that's the most common criticism of Labor that I hear at the grassroots' level.

Perhaps you can see where I'm headed with this:

- Given the profound corruption of campaign finance that existed BEFORE Citizens' United (non of which will be changed by any kind of reversal of that decision) and the general state of confusion about that decision itself, including the fact that few Democrats probably appreciate that the something like 7% of American Labor that is organized IS also empowered to go after funding to unionize because of Citizens United;
- Don't we have good reason to be skeptical about a Movement to Amend that fractures different grassroots' movements outreach, over the differences between corporatized Labor and the potentialities of REFORMED Labor. Shouldn't we be concerned about this effect ESPECIALLY now when our butts are being redistricted into oblivion?

Shouldn't we be concerned about how those grassroots fractures will develop and progress over a Citizens' United/corporate-personhood-remedy, constitutional amendment, ratification period (5-10? years) that can even ultimately result in the defeat of MtA (on legal grounds according to corporate corruption fighter Eliot Spitzer) (and MtA defeated with Labor's authentic base fractured, mind you) - or - to result in MtA success, with Labor fractured, in a fully redistricted environment in which NONE of the original issues surrounding at least transparency, or any of the other campaign finance, or VOTING REFORM issues have been effectively addressed.

In short, I am concerned about the Democratic Party's and the Occupy's authentic value for Labor either being co-opted, or further invalidated and disempowered, by all of the huzzah! coming from the activist group known as Movement to Amend and I think it is a huge mistake to assume that NONE of the impetus in MtA comes from corporate interests. IOW, is MtA a bait-and-switch? And how would we find out under high political pressure for the Democratic Party to identify with this activist group?

[randome]

13. So corporate money is like garlic to a vampire?

Be alert, be independent but don't ignore groups that share many of the same goals. It's a recipe for isolation, which will splinter OWS just as effectively as anything else.

If OWS wants to represent the 99%, they need to be more inclusive.

[patrice]

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

about.

And that's know precisely and fully.

[Ken Burch]

21. They DON'T ignore groups that share the same values.

And being more inclusive is fine...but not if it means doing what some posters here want and just obeying the Democratic party leadership. Look what that did to "Organize For America". Look what it did to the Rainbow Coalition when Jesse disbanded it on party command and replaced it with...nothing at all.

[patrice]

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

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.

[Ken Burch]

15. OK, that's a valid concern.

I personally don't support Move To Amend as of now. Haven't seen what they'd really achieved. Even if they carried each state for their favorite daughter/son candidates, that would only throw the election into the House, and the House would then probably put Romney in office because, even if Democrats retake it, a majority of the state Congressional delegations are controlled by the 'Pugs.

[patrice]

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

at everything we do. I have talked in GA on 3 occasions about the concerns that I outlined for you. And the group remains more hostile to those whom they suspect of being Labor organizers than they are towards MtA.

I have about HAD it.

[Ken Burch]

35. I met one of those people...couldn't understand where she was coming from.

Why do the "Move To Amend" types have it in for labor types? That's just weird.

[patrice]

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

would be a few names communicated to the right people and a bunch of workers would have to start all over again from nothing, or, actually LESS than nothing once certain types find out that they are talking to ANY organizers.

This is a HORRIBLE position and my occupy friends either don't get it or don't care.

[patrice]

17. A couple of links related to this question:

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2012/01/age-of-citizens-united-its-been-with-us.html

http://brokenforum.com/index.php?threads/corporate-personhood-citizens-united-and-the-first-amendment.1198/

I have just started reading on this topic. I'm sure there are more and better discussions than these. I find what Eliot Spitzer is saying about this is extremely interesting.

[freshwest]

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

We didn't owe them anything and they only provided material support and education. We were not them. We were whatever group we were and didn't ask permission or take orders, but listened to their experience. Used or discarded it. They supported our ideology, that was all. We had our goals, didn't need to let them lead us to their conclusions. If one is clear on one's intentions, they can give and take. All people and groups are aided by working for social justice no matter how different.

[Ken Burch]

10. ASF? what the heck was that?

n/t.

[rucky]

6. They do it all the time in real democracies

like the ones with more than two parties.

[Ken Burch]

9. Like Britain in the Nineties? Where the almost the entire activist Left shuttered its operations

on orders from Tony Blair and accepted the defeatist idea that the only goal that mattered was "electing a Labour government"? The result of that was that there were no gains for the workers and the poor under "New Labour" and there were several senseless wars, with no effective way for anyone to Blair's left to hold him accountable. It was nothing but compromise, betrayal and humiliation.

And you couldn't have told at all that the Tories weren't still in power.

That happened because of the direct alliance between left groups and the Labour Party.

That's the nightmare I'm trying to avoid.

[randome]

11. And now that you're aware of that possibility...

...maybe you can avoid it.

[Ken Burch]

16. That's my intent

And it's why, though my political loyalties are with the Democrats, I still think it's crucial for social movements to maintain distance FROM the party, at least in an organizational sense.

[RobertEarl]

19. The left here in the US

Has just about been shuttered.

We've lost some of our best congress people. The anti-war crowd is quiet. Environmental regulations are being gutted. Education cut. The backlash against equality has us backed into a corner.

And we all came out in droves for what we thought would be a real leftie in the WH and the letdown was tremendous.

IMO, that is what fired up Occupy. What Occupy is, is folks who have been on the sidelines who are now getting in the game. Time will tell how much spirit they have.

As an organizer i see that without some vision all will be for naught. Obama had professed a vision but the light of day showed it to be more of a thought or dream. It will be up to the masses to gather on a real vision and then execute.

Have you a vision, Ken?

[Ken Burch]

20. Well put.

Best analysis of the problem I've seen here yet.

My own vision is for decentralized democracy, broken down to the grassroots level...not bourgeois "representative" government, since that is permanently and hopelessly corrupted, but something controlled by the people as closely as possible.

I want the economy to ultimately be run in this way as well...with democratic and transparent decision-making in which we ALL have a real say...not just the "experts"-since all the experts ever do is give us austerity, inequality and war after war after war.

Not just one leader...a life where we ALL lead, where we are all valued, where no one is ever just cast aside and called "deadwood" where we are all given the means of creativity and personal expression as well as of production. A world where all of us LIVE, not just exist.

That's the world I want...I won't see it in my lifetime, but that's the world I dream of.

[patrice]

22. So how does that relate to the issues usually associated with "States' Rights"?

- Health Care mandate
- LGBTQ Civil Rights and Civil Rights in general
- Women's autonomy over their own reproductive choices
- Immigration
- Environmental Regulation
- Three Strikes and You're Out laws
- Marijuana and Hemp
- . . .

How much are you willing to turn over to decentralized Democracy?

[Ken Burch]

24. It would involve a complete overhaul of the nature of local and regional governance

What we HAVE learned, however, is that leaving power to disinterested technocrats isn't the answer to anything.

[patrice]

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

Anarchy will affect that overhaul you mention, what will happen, how long it will take, the ACTUAL outcomes (compared to the intended outcomes). I hear people ALL of the time writing off the pain, suffering, and death that WILL occur as we get from here to there through Anarchy. As much as I wish it were otherwise, these high probabilities compel me toward identifying one stable and relatively acceptable orienting point, whether that point governs all of my actual choices on an individual choice by choice basis is another issue, but the necessity of having SOMETHING to steer by remains the same, because if the increased LOSS, suffering, and even death mean nothing, then WHATEVER it turns out to be when "we" get there, it is just another instance of "Meet the 'new' boss, SAME as the old boss."

[Ken Burch]

31. I don't favor "Anarchy", or even anarchism(the two things AREN'T the same, btw)

Nothing I argued for in the posts upthread equates to "anarchy&quot by which I think you actually mean nihilism).

And no one is protected from suffering by having an elite leadership group. It's only the leaders, for example, that ever push us into wars-the primary cause of mass suffering(something I oppose just as much as you do).

Could you tell me what, exactly, you mean by "one stable and relatively acceptable orienting point"?

[patrice]

36. An orienting point can be different things to different people. I was referring to the

Democratic Party as a relatively useful orienting point as all of this change goes down.

BTW, glad to see that about you and anarchy, or -ism. I'll go read on the difference, so you don't need to bother telling me.

BUT, I will tell you it's a BIG freaking deal amongst the young.

[RobertEarl]

29. Sounds like your vision is

...similar to the Native Americans way of life pre-European invasion.

It can work on a local level, but not all locals can travel to a central point and go about deciding what to do. That's why we have a democratic republic - to do the state and nation's business.

My fav idea is to have many many more representatives. From cities to state and national levels with a constant turnover of reps who are beholden to a central core purpose and multi page and clearly written constitution.

That way nearly everyone in their lifetime has a good chance of actually being in the midst of decision making, and understanding how it all works.

My Occupy group, being new to the game, doesn't have much knowledge of how things actually work or the history of even the local procedures. A mass rep situation would involve many people in the action and make everyone aware, from childhood even, of the ins and outs of governing.

Isn't that like your vision of everyone playing a part?

[Ken Burch]

33. I suppose it's influenced by that, and also by the African village forms of governance

The Internet is one way to deal with the logistical problems of physically meeting at a central location for decision-making.

Perhaps your "many more representatives" approach would help(as a short-term measure, I have called for the removal of the 435 seat size limit on the U.S. House, a limit that has massively weakened the representation of most of urban and Rainbow America).

There's really no good reason to preserve anything of Madison's anti-democratic congressional structures-it's a national disgrace that our system still has any vestiges of the measures used to preserve the power of slaveowners and Alexander Hamilton moneygrubber types.

[RobertEarl]

37. Internet could facilitate that nationally

But let's get back to the grassroots local level.

Where I live, right now, for four years running, just 5 county commissioners and 5 city council members make all the decisions.

I would have those reps increased to 50 people every year making those decisions. And do it in person, in open meetings and in office for only one year each.

It would be as close to anarchy as we could get without losing all control.

[Ken Burch]

42. It would be better

Still...you need to avoid using "anarchy" and "anarchism" as if they meant the same thing. Anarchism is a system of cooperative voluntary management of society...anarchy is just chaos.

[bluestate10]

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

Making pogress requires that one take a rational view. Obama is making progress because he takes a view that one tackle the issues that can be solved and take big bite out of larger issues, biting until they are solved. Change does not happen within a short span of time the way progressives and the right demand.

[patrice]

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

And the individual person's EXPERIENCE of whatever it is, is ir-relevant to the ideology upon which that formulation is based.

It's a view that appears to do very little process thinking. It assumes that it knows absolutely EVERYTHING that it needs to know, and everything about everything that it needs to know, in order to come up with its predictions about the future.

It takes millions and millions of people, limits ALL of their characteristics and traits, and frames them in a world of static environments and then comes up with some rather self-serving conclusions.

[patrice]

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

And why does everyone assume that the ones who aren't robots are insignificant in what happens?

[Ken Burch]

30. We had the same thing in the U.S. in the Nineties

On the orders of our party leaders, grassroots activism basically died under Clinton, and all there was was the schemes of the "pros".

It was part of the process of silencing the left and the caucus groups in the Democratic Party that started under Paul Kirk-based on the lie that the groups were to blame for the defeat if our presidential candidates in 1980, 1984 and 1988. So the activists were essentially kicked out of any real say in the party and nothing good at all happened in return. The party ceased to mean anything after 1988, the Rainbow Coalition, at the time the only remaining grassroots Left group in all the US, disbanded on party command in 1990, and the 1992 Democratic presidential candidate ran as a passionate opponent of everyone in the grassroots. We saw the uselessness that led to. And we saw the uselessness that came when the president the Left elected in 2008 told us all to shut up and go away(include the "Obama movement" itself) AFTER the election...leaving nothing to fill the space where the activists had been.

This is what happens when the alliance between the groups and the party is TOO close.

[patrice]

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

they were saying, TTE, "Look nice, smile and keep your mouth shut. You're not the one who talks, especially to the press, here."

[patrice]

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

[Ken Burch]

43. There's something to be said for the idea.

Or the idea of a Left party.

[patrice]

46. There are some stupid people who will turn off at the word Left, but Labor reaches

across all political boundaries and has honor that everyone can agree to.

Liberal policies by any other name would still be just as Liberal.

[bluestate10]

26. Yes.

Groups tend to have narrow focus, one or two key issues for them. One issue that I have with progressive groups is that they don't align their interests to the party that meets their needs the best, conservative and far right groups align more efficiently. One has to look not futher than the hold that the far right has on the republican party, fortunately for the country, a disasterous hold for republicans.

[RobertEarl]

38. Eh??

Who got Obama elected? And then who stayed home in 2010?

It was first the inspired, and then in 2010 disillusioned left that with great power and show of force did both. The right and the republicans are a minority that only win when when the democratic left feels pissed upon and shunned.

Or do you have a better reason we stayed home in 2010?

[JDPriestly]

39. I suppose you would have to say that Martin Luther King allied with the Democrats

especially Robert Kennedy, but King certainly did not lose anything by it.

Women had to ally with established politicians to get the vote, and lost nothing by it.

You can be independent and still part of something else.

In fact, many married people enjoy a fair amount of independence in their work, some of their social life, their religion, even politics, etc. and remain in working marriages.

[Ken Burch]

45. King made a temporary, tactical alliance, but he mainly his distance from the party.

MLK never accepted the 60's establishment liberal idea that the Rainbow OWED it to LBJ to back the Vietnam War because of the civil rights bills(his antiwar stance caused Johnson to call Dr. King, in front of White House aides "that n____r preacher&quot . Nor did MLK permanently give up on working for economic as well as legal equality(he agreed, under Kennedy Administration pressure, to take social and economic justice issues out of the '63 March on Washington, and the Kennedy people even arrogantly insisted on editing some of the speeches given on the Mall that day)...he was reviving the second part of that fight when he announced the Poor People's Campaign, a movement whose agenda was sharply to the left of the Democratic Party, and even of the McCarthy and Kennedy campaigns.

[JDPriestly]

51. Generally, that is the way it works with the Democratic Party.

While advocates for racial equality, criminal justice, human rights, women's rights, fair labor standards, better pay, more regulation, the environment may support and ally themselves with the Democratic Party, they do not hesitate (and rightfully so) to call the Democratic establishment on its failings. They keep their distance just as Dr. King did.

The fear of being co-opted it absurd. You maintain your integrity while working with others. That's how you do it.

[U4ikLefty]

44. not Occupy.

Occupy and political parties do not mix.

[Marr]

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

Team up with politicians and they become one little operation in an establishment machine.

[eridani]

48. No, but individual people who are members of both activists and parties--

--are perfectly capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time.

[Ken Burch]

49. Wasn't saying they weren't

I'm one of those people, after all.

[eridani]

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

I think it's essential that OWS and other pressure groups stay on the outside.