Bill Maher: Occupy should stop camping & start participating in the political process
- Thread starter Dusty Bake Activate
- Start date
warm weather
sunny skies
get them tents out brehs
sunny skies
get them tents out brehs
Rufus Dufus
All Star
TrueEpic08
Dum Shiny
So they should participate in a political process that is fully controlled and ordained by the interests that they are purportedly campaigning against?
1). The whole conception of that is stupid.
2). By going on the TV shows of the mainstream political elites' spectrum (Faux News, CNN, etc.) and appealing to elected officials (again, supported by the political process run by the interests that they are campaigning against), they ARE fully ingrained into the political process AND the culture, therefore diluting their impact as a form of Dual Power.
If anything, they need to be encouraged to participate in the typical electoral process LESS.
1). The whole conception of that is stupid.
2). By going on the TV shows of the mainstream political elites' spectrum (Faux News, CNN, etc.) and appealing to elected officials (again, supported by the political process run by the interests that they are campaigning against), they ARE fully ingrained into the political process AND the culture, therefore diluting their impact as a form of Dual Power.
If anything, they need to be encouraged to participate in the typical electoral process LESS.
Dusty Bake Activate
Fukk your corny debates
Nope. Occupy was successful at influencing the debate, and highlighting their most core fundamental issue: the unprecedented level of income equality we're experiencing.
But what now? If you actually want to be part of real change, you have to involve yourself in the political process. The tea party was successful in moving the Republican party to the right and putting the national debt front and center by getting their guys in. Granted, the tea party and Occupy are not necessarily right and left equivalents of each other, primarily because the tea party had a lot more to do with corporate interests channeling rage from a certain voter demographic (see: cac) in order to make electoral gains and favorable policy, and Occupy is lot more amorphous. Also, the tea party is the Republican base...it was a neat trick to rebrand themselves under a new name.
If Occupy doesn't take it to the next step by trying to get candidates into office and pressuring existing politicians to enact legislation they deem important, they're useless beyond what they have already done. It's a fine line to walk because you don't want to get co-opted by the Democratic party and sellout your principles, but playing bongos in tents and shytting on cop cars will only get you so far.
I work right around zuccotti park, and I swear those people never ever brought up voting lol.. They would just complain with no real suggestions, what a horrible movement. Even the redneck tea partiers had the common sense to organize and make a difference at the ballots
TrueEpic08
Dum Shiny
That second bolded part in particular I agree with. The first bolded part was something that people already knew when the financial meltdown happened in 07-08. Occupy is a symptom of it; they didn't bring it to light, they were already of it.
I'm not saying do nothing, but I am saying that I just don't envision a way for them to be a part of our typical mainstream discourse without falling prey to the type of politics and electoral money games that they purport to protest so strongly against.
Now, I think that we can agree that it would be a much easier step for them to step into existence as a full electoral party within traditional discourse (your suggestion) than to completely break off into a type of commune that would prefigure the type of political society that they would want for the rest of us (my suggestion). My question for you is this: What is your strategy for going about Occupy becoming a player in the mainstream political scene without becoming beholden to the same interests that they protest against?
Dusty Bake Activate
Fukk your corny debates
What are they accomplishing being outside of the process? They've already succeeded at influencing the political dialogue. Kudos for that. Now what? Unless armed revolution is the option, there's now way to get any goals accomplished without using the tools of the status quo to try and change the status quo, which I know is easier said then done.
As far as their strategy, it's difficult to give a one-size-fits-all solution mainly because the Occupy movement is amorphous. Some are the radical Nader-Kucinich left, some of communists, some are anarchists, some are Jewish banking conspiracy theorists, and many are probably just spoiled middle class white kids who can't find jobs are rightfully angry.
But overall, I think it's safe to say it's a mostly left-wing movement. So a way they can be players at a policy level is get organized, fund and run candidates, pressure their elected officials through organized protests, meetings, and calls and demands for their issues to be taken seriously. If you look at what they tea party did, they primaried Republican candidates who they thought whether right or wrongly didn't represent their issues. They successfully won some of those primaries, and the ones they didn't win, they at least scared the incumbent farther to the right. It wouldn't be as easy for Occupy because they don't have Americans for Prosperity, Freedom Works, and the Koch brothers funding them, but they do have people power and visibility. But you look at all the hardline immovable right-wingers in Congress and there's too many to even begin to name. There's nothing like that on the left. Complaining about shyt on the sidelines doesn't change anything. The bongo-playing and hippie tent communities aren't going to get it done.
TrueEpic08
Dum Shiny
And I agree with this, like I said in my last post. The issue is what type of action can and should be taken.
What I'm saying is that they are not outside of the political process, they appeal to it all of the time in their protests, the way in which they appeal to politicians to change policy and in their appearances on news mainstream news programs. Going further into it, I believe, would allow them to fall prey to the ordering, structuring and stultifying elements of party politics, which would demand cohesion, hierarchy and essentially nullify what I believe to be the one decisively great thing about Occupy: it's horizontal and multi-valent organization.
What I think they should do is be less like the Orange Revolution and the Arab Spring movements (specifically Egypt's, which changed essentially nothing about it's repressive politics, just replacing Mubarak with a Junta, and we'll see what happens in the wake of the Parliamentary Elections) and be more like the Zapatistas (minus their dealings with the Mexican government and, if at all possible, the armed element), Abahlali baseMjondolo, and Anarchist Catalonia (which admittedly had its own issues). Do not engage in the typical discourse and, instead,provide a prefigurative example of what a new political society should be like. Participating in the current one implies the legitimacy of a type of political organization that has been responsible for many of the economic and societal inequalities that Occupy has been protesting against.
Two more things about that last paragraph:
1). Nothing that the Tea Partiers desired was nothing that Republicans didn't already want (it was an astroturfed movement, as you wrote), so funding and the like was easy.
2). In contrast, you have to realize that there IS no real left in mainstream American politics, so where would the funding and support for policies beyond a mild center-left come from? As you said, it can't and won't come from the Democrats, and the political machine as constituted requires large amounts capital for entry. What's the strategy for Occupy becoming an electoral force without compromising it's major strategic advantage or what it would like to change about the system?
Majestic Pape
The-Coli = W SOHH = L
I remember reading somewhere that Occupy was just a bunch of white people mad their white privilege wasn't actually helping them. Ehh.
Dusty Bake Activate
Fukk your corny debates
Eh...no. They get pundits talking and Democratic politicians to give lip service to their greivances, but that's as far as it goes. Democratic congressman X might come on CNN and say "income inequality and crony capitalism is a major issue in our country that needs to be addressed" then turn around get bribed by Bank of America. Only real, active involvement gets results.
They could use SOME structuring. Right now they're a herd of cats. At some form of a concise platform on some basic general positions and demands and some charismatic, knowledgeable spokespeople who can articulate it.
They could take still mobilize and propagate their message through media and hold demonstrations against government and corporations while actively involving themselves in political process. The two aren't mutually exclusive. Also the Zapatistas weren't exactly a stunning success, and their refusal to endorse Obrador, who lost a close election was an example of the perils of not involving yourself in the political process.
Regarding them "providing a prefigurative example of what a new political society should like," they just sounds like a lot of inconsequential fluff to me.
Not a political organization, but the political process of elections and legislation, and you either have to participate in it or overthrow with force to change it in any meaningful way.
This is true. That's why it wouldn't be nearly as easy as the tea party made it, but it still has to be done imo. You at least have to scare politicians into thinking they're going to be primaried or exposed for their cronyism and corruption in a very public way.
It would have to be done with pooled resources and much less available funds. If you're going to go up against candidates funded by the banks, oil companies, etc, that's obviously going to be a huge uphill climb. You have a few people like George Soros and Peter Lewis, but not many. The first step would be getting onto ballots at the local level and at least getting some serious progressives to the table so they can be heard. People are already upset about all the money in politics and how elections are bought. There has to be a breaking point. Getting out your message with not much financing at a grassroots level is easier nowadays though all the technology and social media.