That was when I unsubscribed and stopped donating to the Human Rights Campaign.
But sending Blankfein to advocate on the Hill for them was essentially telling Congress: "It's OK, really, the big bosses don't mind! You can pretend we're a republic now. Just pay attention to what the people want, and if we can get enough of them on our side, move forward--just like the old days."
up
0 users have voted.
—
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
some of the later conservatism around LGBT communities--lots of support for Hillary, etc.
The movements that used to be solidly left-wing have essentially been picked off one by one.
But, of course, there's always people who don't go along, and new movements that arise.
up
0 users have voted.
—
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Let's face it, they can still rake in the mega-profits and control the political process. Sure, it's a big deal for those whose lives are greatly affected, but these identity politics issues have little to zero impact on either the existence of the oligarchs or how they function to maintain their wealth and power. Handy for keeping people divided, however!
For the first time, it sounds like rhetoric to me. Listing accomplishments of the campaign, etc.
I wish he would speak to us! Acknowledge the fact that we haven't heard from him in a long time. Acknowledge that many of us may be disappointed, confused, feeling lost...
I knew from the outset what this "revolution" livestream was going to be like--that's why I didn't go to the viewing party a canvassing friend invited me to. But then I saw a link and thought I'd watch...
You went into it with a negative attitude, and came out the same.
I personally was pleased that he never once mentioned, or pressed for support for the Democratic Party, or Hillary Clinton ( well he did mention in passing, but only to reference changes, and influence his platform had on her campaign rhetoric and policies on tuition, and healthcare initiatives. Not word one on supporting HRC, or how bad Trump is.) . He mentioned the changes brought about in the national discussion of issues from LGBT rights, to the economic inequity, to student debt, free tuition at public colleges and universities, universal healthcare, the environment, private prisons and judicial reform. The only mention of the DNC was in defending the influence his supporters had on the Democratic Party Platform, which is at the root of the issues OR ( Our Revolution) will continue to demand attention to. He had a substantial discussion of TPP, and the negative consequences, mainly the danger of the Investor State Dispute resolution language, and the TransCanada lawsuit demanding a $15 billion dollar settlement for the US shutting down the Keystone Pipeline.. He pointedly called out Obama's support of the TPP as "dead wrong", He mentioned as well the Phillip Morris lawsuit seeking remedy for Uruguay showing explicit photos on Cigarette packs. His quote regarding trade deals was that "trade deals are good for Corporations, not American Citizens, or ordinary people anywhere".
He pointed out the main issues that OR feels are paramount.... they were not only efforts to bring progressive candidates, but also progressive issues to the table for support from the organization. he pointed out 5 of 100 or so candidates that OR will be supporting, from school board to state legislators to Senator Russ Feingold ( which I found interesting as Russ came out for Hillary long before the convention)
The ballot initiatives that will garner OR support will similarly be focused on several primary efforts at the ballot box, to include proposals to overturn Citizens United, automatic voter registration, single payer healthcare proposal in Colorado, Prop 61 in California to limit prescription drug prices to Veterans Admin equivalent,and support for reform of the criminal justice system, immigration, and Native American Rights.
There you have it!! My brief synopsis of The launch of "Our Revolution".
I'm a firm believer in no effort in, no positive outcome. I think it was a positive effort from Bernie to continue his platform at a legislative, and national discourse level. The tepid response will be from those who can't overcome the disappointment in the Democratic Party Primary. I too am disappointed, but feel it is an organization worth consideration, and respect from any of us who supported his candidacy. I won't be donating right away, but I won't be trash talking the initiative either
And, although I rec'd your comment above for its detail and the commitment you obviously feel to the fight, your last paragraph mischaracterizes critics, I think.
I wouldn't like to assume that anybody here puts "no effort in." The automatic assumption that a critic of a proposed action is a lazy layabout keyboard warrior is one I saw often on DK, and it seems pretty baseless.
Then there's the implication that those of us who have problems with this course of action just can't get over a loss.
"The tepid response will be from those who can't overcome the disappointment in the Democratic Party Primary." That's possible. Or, the tepid response could be from people who don't think this is going to be a fruitful course of action, since Dean just did the same thing from 2004-2008, with net negative results.
I'm not saying that supporting progressive candidates is wrong (though it seems foolish for them to run under the banner of the party that takes out million-dollar ad buys against progressive incumbent candidates like Alan Grayson), and certainly ballot initiatives are worth pursuing; but in a year in which we saw more blatant election fraud and voter suppression than I've ever seen--and I was in FL in 2000--I'd think we have other concerns. And in a year in which both major parties committed themselves fully to attacking our views--which is what Hillary v Trump and ad buys taken out against Grayson amounts to--it seems foolish to simply continue affiliating with the Democratic Party as if a plucky effort is all that's needed.
"I too am disappointed but feel it is an organization worth consideration and respect"
Obviously, you have the right to any opinion about Our Revolution. Here's my feeling: it's worth consideration (and I'll be watching to see what happens with it) but, given the history of this strategy option (Dean), an extraordinarily hostile DNC whose aim seems to be to stamp out progressivism at least as much or more as its aim is to defeat Republicans, and widespread election fraud, it's not automatically worth respect. I'm not sure what that quick respect would be based on, other than an affection and loyalty for Sanders. I have that affection, and that loyalty, but that doesn't mean I automatically respect every choice he makes.
We're free people. If we disagree with Bernie, that doesn't make us lazy, quick to succumb to disappointment and give up the fight, or treacherous to Bernie (not that you suggested that, but others have, on Twitter most notably). This is a difference of opinion on strategy. Friends have them.
up
0 users have voted.
—
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
I take your commentary with grace, even though you seemed to take some of my generalizations harshly. Yesterday, and a couple of days before, it was interesting that the media dumped a couple of disparaging stories,( similar to their methodology during the primary) in what seems to be an effort to discredit the OR strategy. As I said, I'll watch to see how this pans out. So much of the negativity surrounding Sander's inability to overcome the fixed game in the primary seems to be sour grapes. If you were for his platform then, why take a negative stance on an effort by some of his supporters to continue to advance issues that the primary proved were striking a cord all across the country, and inclusive of a broad demographic. I'd suggest that all of us put aside our disappointment, and as we do here, agree to disagree...that is where I feel justified in suggesting the movement is worth consideration and respect. I made a comment referring to my personal takeaway of the presentation by Bernie last night. I didn't say that anyone was to jump on board, no questions asked. Suggesting a tepid response was to multiple comments from one party that were definitively negative...well before the body of Bernie's presentation had even been made. I used an analogy of many life experiences; sports, marriage, business, etc., to note that going into anything with a negative attitude usually results in a less than positive outcome. If you are sure you are going to lose...you usually do.
I have not spent huge amounts of time researching efforts to continue political momentum by losing candidates, but in my 44 years of voting, I have seen many exceptional ideals laid waste by apathy...starting with the national movements in the 60's and 70's...civil rights, womens' rights, the anti-war/anti establishment idealism of that period, environmental movements, LGBT rights, Black Lives Matter, judicial reform...all of which have had groundswells of support, only to have many of them swept into the dustbin of apathy. Take war for instance....We have been engaged militarily somewhere every since the Vietnam War. The War on Drugs has been a targeted effort where administrations actually were in the business of supplying drugs to communities of color. It has resulted in mass incarceration, with a disproportionate number of imprisoned being young, underprivileged, black men. Take a good look at the titans of finance, and government; at their youthful enthusiasm for one, or many of these movements, and at the ultimate direction that the lure of wealth and power took them. Anti war protesters are vilified as unpatriotic by MSM today. We as 99%ers are viewed as having our hand out for freebies. BLM protesters are considered rabble rousers, and Black teen-agers labeled as thugs, super predators, etc.. Milennials are looked at, and considered by many as lazy, basement dwelling, users. No mention of skyrocketing costs for education, housing, vehicles, insurance, healthcare...idealism is a shortlived sugar buzz that too many of us, myself included, are unwilling to maintain over time.
Last night Bernie put forth an effort to break that cycle, and it was a non starter before it even happened for many here at this site. I can't imagine what is being written at TOP
because you perfectly described my position on OR--with this phrase most of all: "it seems foolish to simply continue affiliating with the Democratic Party as if a plucky effort is all that's needed."
I'm over my disappointment with the primary and working daily on ways I can put the insights Sanders taught me into action--locally and, where possible, beyond that. I am not, however, over my disappointment with the Democratic party, for distrust has grown over decades and this time around the frayed tether just snapped.
I went to a "watch party" that was in a McDonalds. Of the 17 people, who signed up, 10 came. We hunkered around my laptop and tried to listen to the live stream. All were at least in their sixties with several women much older. I tried to ask what they are going to support and vote for. All the elderly women but one said Hillary Clinton, saying they are very well aware of all she has done wrong, but they were all afraid of Trump winning. Three I think supported Jill Stein.
It was a sad "party".
Very sickly people and homeless sitting not far from us inside the McDonalds. No one looked. It's hard work to ignore the signs of people's decay in mental and physical health. I have the feeling that in my area many more sickly people around, suffering.
As I don't think that there is something else to do, one can as well register with "Our Revolution" or whatever it's called. If and for whom you vote is none of everyone's business, so you can support Jill Stein, sign up with "Our Revolution" and do some local support of specific legislative initiatives and support some local candidates for local offices, all of it, because nothing will be accomplished otherwise, probably.A multi-tasking resistance effort, may be.
I can't tell people why. They would be even more sad and that's not what they need. The most difficult part for me is doing something despite the fact that I feel completely discouraged that it makes any difference. So, I force myself to "think positively". Which is totally against my nature and the way I was brought up.
Alles ist weg!
Geld ist weg, Maed'l ist weg
Alles ist weg!
up
0 users have voted.
—
There are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know.
scheint gegen die Natur der Mittel- und Osteuropäer zu sein.
up
0 users have voted.
—
There are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know.
maybe just depends on what point in time you're looking. My extended family of germanic immigrants are relentlessly positiv! Gets on my nerves, lol. My English-descended relatives are the sour, downbeat ones.
The event I was at skewed old and sick. I caucused for Bernie, however, in the primaries and the pro-Bernie caucusers skewed young and maybe not athletic but at least energetic. I will make a couple of points, one obvious and one maybe less obvious. The first is that we need to reach and involve young people. One awful consequence of the Clinton nomination is that it has turned off a lot of young people. The second is that we on the left have become to accustomed to, and accepting of, losing. We do too much whining and not enough working and organizing and we need to be smarter. The regressive and repressive leadership of the DNC and the national party is not invulnerable. There is lots of scope for fixing/taking over local democratic parties. In some places Greens are a viable alternative. Most of all, however, we need to start getting younger, progressive, energetic people involved. We need to think about how to do that. I did not get a clear enough view of Our Revolution last night to know if it is an organization that might help in this, but the need clearly exists.
are an awesome minority within their generation, who tack against their generation's current political leanings (sort of like I did in the 80s, when my generation was largely going for Reagan). Hillary does pretty well with people over 60. Has through this whole season. It's folks under 50 she has a problem with.
So don't be too discouraged. You were talking to her demographic; it's not surprising that 70% of them would support her, and fall for the foolish FEAR TRUMP! talking point.
We are still in the majority. Hillary's unfavorables are near 58%. And that's after a convention bump, with Bernie stumping for her, and nobody up there to contrast with her other than Trump.
The majority of the people aren't buying it.
up
0 users have voted.
—
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
abouit the suffragette movement and the women's fight to vote way back in the days. Their faces saddened, they nodded in agreement and it's may be one of the haunting memories they have about hard times they went through. I think they are dead serious about not to not slip those into foggy polemic. I think they believe that Hillary will be the one, who won't let this happen. I don't have a heart to suggest it might not be the case. And I don't even know if to suggest something like this about HRC is true.These women were old and tired and delicate. And they certainly know better than me the realities of their living conditions way back and today.
know best what's going on for them in their lives. It's about whether they can be convinced to settle for scraps.
It's about whether people can be convinced to follow someone who's going to hurt them, by beefing up an external threat.
Of course they can, but not always. The more you watch conventional media, the greater your likelihood of being convinced. At least that's my best guess.
All I'm really saying is, don't fall back into the idea that we are a tiny minority shouting in the wilderness. The PTB love it when people like us feel like that, and they do all they can to foster that belief. We're not a minority. We're a majority without a vehicle for political expression. We're a majority with a handful of tiny social scraps left to connect us, after 4 decades of hurricane winds shredded our social and civic structure. But we're not a minority. I've never been in a larger majority (of Americans) in my life.
that a large majority of the people are NOT aware what is being done to them. I think the "little people of the 99 percent" can't be fooled that easily, but they can be oppressed and they are. It's just kind of heart-and soul braking to see that we don't know how to express ourselves in public and get control over the those, who will harm and betray and skillfully silence us and render us frozen and mute.
I also think among the elderly generation are so many immigrants who fled from Nazi Germany's AND from Communists that they are more vulnerable to the fear mongering about a right-wing, white supremacist supported Trump presidency. I don't blame them. It's one of the reasons I never could understand how some might think of voting for Trump as a "strategic vote" against Clinton. I also can't vote for Clinton, because of the foreign policies she supported, she, Obama and the preceding presidents, including GWBush, Bill Clinton, Papa Bush and Reagan. I wonder how many "elderly" are really aware of how much those foreign policies have influenced little people around the world to be "upset". My hunch is that in European countries they rather like to deal with a Clinton than with a Trump. Those are the realities, I think. How nice it would have been if a Sanders could have been elected and lead a meaningful social left movement. Instead we see how the influence of international oligarchs infiltrating internationally and co-opting politicians there and make a mess out of almost every country in the world.
"The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"
people have become used to the idea of austerity, which made it easy for TPTB to sell it as an economic policy. Incrementalism has worked quite well for TPTB. We'll need to push back much more to overcome our inexorable slide toward greater and greater poverty. I'm a boomer, BTW.
up
0 users have voted.
—
"The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"
"the suffragette movement and the women's fight to vote way back in the days"
blah blah blah Torches of Freedom!
blah blah blah Glass Ceiling! ad infinitum. Play with propaganda instead of directly fixing shit, yeah no. Just say no to political "consultants", we're all experts now.
Yet another dot org choosing Objective Reality #1 most workers again left forever struggling in #2. I say No Thanks to Public Relations brainwashing! Oligarch politics are bullshit and we live in an oligarchy. Do the math?
reminds me that my mother smoked at the end of wwII til some time after 1950. Because smoking killed hunger feelings and because those women in that time had lost any support from missing male partners and husbands due to the war and got accustomed to "struggle on their own" and became independent individuals. Then they struggled to get rid of the smoking addiction for the next 15 years.
I had no idea the PR and propaganda machinery goes that far back in the US historical political toolbox.
Sigmund Freud, and the destruction wrought from his devising pro-war propaganda and marketing slogans based on their subconscious appeal.
His findings were used to lay the groundwork for political propaganda here. Deployed in the run-up to the First World War, the Creel Commission was formed to swing a staunchly anti-war populace behind the American war effort. "Four Minute Men" began to pop up in the packed popular movie houses of the time to rile up nationalistic war fervor. Hollywood chipped in too.
Bernays took his uncle's work and used it to manipulate people into supporting the government's desire for war and buying things (i.e. cigarettes) that would kill them.
up
0 users have voted.
—
"If I should ever die, God forbid, let this be my epitaph:
THE ONLY PROOF HE NEEDED
FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
WAS MUSIC"
I watched Democracy NOW this morning with a discussion between the CEO Larry Cohen and Claire Sandberg starting at TC 46:42. Claire Sandberg made it clear what stood behind the dissent of the group that split off. I can understand why Larry Cohen is not the most convincing guy...
It seems to be all about the money and how it could or could not be raised and who can do what with the organization under a legal structure of a 501c4 organization. As always "Bei Geld hört die Freundschaft auf." (But I don't go into the meaning or translation of this again, it caused some disputes before).
Ok, when I don't know what to think about something, I usually sleep over it, wait and see and hope it will become clear to me in the future. I am good at sitting something out and wait and watch.
I hope in my dreams that "the something else" will pop up and make me all exited again.
My local feed was cut off too early and I did not get an idea of how they think this will play out. My personal view is that the organization should be explicitly political and not an non-profit. Most Bernie contributors do not make enough to itemize taxes anyway. My model, I think, would be an organization that funds selected campaigns and finds smart young people to work with/drive those campaigns, creating a new generation of committed, progressive campaigners.
Thanks! My faith will Bern forever - he managed way more than could have been thought possible against entrenched corruption not only locally but internationally, against corrupt political actors and parties and the billionaires and corporate interests most others feared to challenge. We could have survived, with Bernie - had the rigged nomination not been left to stand and embolden the enemy poised for a hostile corporate take-over any real democracy would fight tooth and nail if not headed by those bought out/blackmailed/bullied by such destructive interests.
But Bernie's still fighting for The People as best he can, and because of him, many more of The People are now aware that we have to fight for ourselves.
up
0 users have voted.
—
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
He has an unparalleled sense of the left wing of the possible and can help to lead this country forward on a number of issues benefiting the working class. As I said below in my comment, I'm actually psyched!
Instead of talking about knitting doilies, we now talk about how to stop the TPP (well those of us who are not sulking). I thought he laid out the coming agenda for change quite well. Pointing out what has been accomplished helps see where we are on solid ground and where we need to dig in and focus our efforts. He--without actually saying it--also proposed a number of ways to get around the corporate media blackout of issues that matter to people: learn the facts and talk to people--neighbors, co-workers, family.
Altogether, it was nothing less than what I expected from Sanders, and I am willing to get to work to make changes.
up
0 users have voted.
—
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.--Aristotle
If there is no struggle there is no progress.--Frederick Douglass
Obviously, time to build something new. No point in sitting around watching the movement spit on itself--although I will check in from time to time, just to see how things are faring.
up
0 users have voted.
—
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Our Revolution will revitalize American democracy by unifying the millions of people who got involved over the course of U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign in support of progressive causes. Our Revolution will give the people a major voice in the political system by activating supporters and engaging millions more Americans in the political process.
Our Revolution will empower the next generation of progressive leaders by inspiring and recruiting progressive candidates to run for offices across the entire spectrum of government. From school boards to congressional seats, a new generation of political leaders, dedicated to transforming America’s corrupt campaign finance system and rigged economy, will become involved. Our Revolution will provide candidates inspired by the “political revolution,” with the unparalleled digital tools, organizing knowledge and grassroots support, which may include fundraising, successfully utilized throughout Senator Sanders’ campaign.
The corporate media has largely failed to cover the issues critical to the future of our country: from the devastating effects of climate change to the decline of the middle class. Our Revolution will educate the public about the most pressing issues confronting our nation and the bold solutions being offered. This effort will ensure that drowned out voices are heard and become an important part of the local, state and national dialogue.
We make Public Comments to federal agencies in the United States and Canada as well as the United Nations.
As a 501c4 educational organization we offer free documentation to any individual or organization in Make Your Case with Weblinks, Books, Radio, Plays, Videos, and the Unified Platform.
Our Charter, details of our activities in our Annual Reports dating back to 2010, and all our Public Comments in full can be found here.
We base our alliances upon an organization's support of the Unified Platform.
United Nations: The New Progressive Alliance has been in special consultative status with the U.N. Economic and Social Council since 2015.
We endorse only those candidates that support the Unified Platform. For details click Elections at the top of our website.
We have been designated as a non-profit 501c4 educational organization.
We are also on Facebook and Ello.
We remain focused on educating the public about Progressivism, candidates' adherence to its tenets, and inspiring a new Progressive Era in the United States.
I think it's noteworthy that neither Our Revolution nor the NPA is proposing to function as a political party.
It's like the Judean Peoples' Front vs the Popular Front of Judea!
Or the Kommunistische Partei Deutschlands (KPD) and the Deutsche Kommunistische Partei (DKP) of the BRD, ca 1972. I think the DKP were the "standard" Moscow-oriented party, whilst the smaller KPD was allied with Maoism. The 1972 election was convincingly won by the Brandt-Scheel coalition.
If I remember, neither had much to do with the DDR's Sozialistische Einheitspartei Deutschlands (SED).
Splittism!
BIIIG difference!
/sn
up
0 users have voted.
—
There are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know.
You get dust. Pardon me, but my college German language course has not abided with me. However, it is fair to bring in Mr. Godwin again. After all, we are talking about the same thing occurring now, with separate but similar movements not coalescing so as to increase the strength of their positions, because, hey, they aren't "identical". This has been a problem for the Left since early 20th Century. Maybe the nature of the beast--Lefties are about individual freedom and public (social) responsibility. The Right has always been rather authoritarian, surrender to group-think, get-in-line. As a result, Right Wing groups coalesce (or, perhaps, clot is a better word).
In the Weimar Republic before Adolph & Co. took over, there were about 14 different labor parties. They couldn't get their acts together to present a united front opposing the Brown Shirts--and these parties were picked off one-by-one. The Left still has not learned the lesson--it's okay to be a free thinker but to gain political power the Left must gain cohesion--not 100% agreement on everything but enough common ground to oppose the PTB and the Right.
could light up the real left. And that they can and will coalesce.
The only other thing I see about the liberals/progressives, is the inclusiveness which allows for nay sayers, people with "fringe" ideas, even for liberal/progressives. It causes fractures before getting off the ground.
Liberal/progressives are ready, most of the time, to listen to anyone who seems to have their head on straight and done some homework. This way of doing things provides almost too much to take in or to decide what to support.
I don't think I have an answer for this, but I sure would like to know what happened to Bernie and Jane, because I believe from everything I heard and saw, and DH as well, that he is the real deal and acceptable.
As a thirty year politician, Bernie may have looked around toward the end and decided, that he was going to get the best deal he could. The not speaking to those of us who wanted to support his agenda, is troublesome.
Some speculation is that is as simple as Bernie not wanting to be a "spoiler" or to incite a mob mentality (you those pitchforks) or a 'treasonous" rebellion.
I really don't know and wish we all did.
up
0 users have voted.
—
You may choose to look the other way, but you can never say again you did not know. ~ William Wiberforce
If you can donate, please! POP Money is available for bank-to-bank transfers. Email JtC to make a monthly donation.
"They couldn't get their acts together to present a united front opposing the Brown Shirts--"
but is the Democratic Party even capable of performing this unifying function? If not, what can possibly be done to make it capable? Or would it be more effective to try to form a "united front" that is at least to some degree independent of the Democratic Party?
And who exactly, are the "Brownshirts" in this context, that we are meant to oppose? If they are Trump's rightist supporters, to what extent should we, or must unite with Clinton's team of neoliberal corporatists to oppose them? It's all very well to recommend a united front, but sometimes an unreliable ally can be more dangerous than a determined foe.
Of course Splittism is happening, but there's a real (and pressing) strategic critique underneath this split. In other words, we just did this and we ended up going the opposite direction from "having a major voice"--we ended up with next to no voice. So why would we do the same thing again?
up
0 users have voted.
—
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
I missed the first 25 minutes unfortunately, or maybe fortunately if Sanders didn't say much of anything before then. I couldn't help but notice a few things however:
- Lots of talk about Clinton's promises to support this or that. Can I say that I'll believe it when it happens? Somehow I don't think Bernie is that gullible, so what does he say when it doesn't happen?
- Quote "We ran a great campaign, we woke up the American people." Well yes, I'll concede that. As a matter of fact, it's remarkable. I was very skeptical when he announced last year, figuring oh well, he'll get a few more people to listen and that will be that. What actually happened however (my own impression) is that he ended up changing the national political conversation even more than Occupy did several years ago. This is a good thing, and necessary, but not enough.
- Another quote "We must never allow oligarchy to become our system of government." But of course it already is. Practically nothing substantial happens that isn't endorsed by one or the other faction of the oligarchy, even at the local level. The 2 or 3 principal factions sometimes fight it out to decide, but they make the decisions, not us. Until very large numbers of people understand this, we won't be able to make a change.
- Apparently this new group is 100% conventional electoral politics. They will be supporting 100 candidates and 7 ballot propositions around the country, running your standard political campaigns. There was no word, not one, about building alternative social, community or economic institutions. What I would call autonomous zones, or a new commons. The kind of stuff that holds people together, permits new political formations, and allows a political revolution to happen. The kind of stuff that needs to happen before lots of resources are thrown at electoral campaigns, not after.
yes, to the 3rd thing on your list. Bernie went from "our system is an oligarchy," to "we are drifting towards oligarchy" (somewhere in Apr/May), to "we must never allow oligarchy to become our system of government." He was right the first time (as you noted).
He listed some candidates that would be supported. No mention of Canova.
He listed at least 10 issues that would be supported. No mention of voter suppression/fraud.
At least in the sense that we need automatic registration at 18.
Did you mean "Hillary stealing the nomination?" He's never going to address that in the way so many of his supporters want. Look at the reaction to Trump saying things are rigged; the media paints him as crazy.
And if Bernie had said stuff like that, he would be painted as crazy also. He was already fighting the wild haired kook meme. If he said stuff like trump said re election fraud he'd be lucky to be covered as well as Kuchinich.
He did say that we took on the entire democratic establishment. That's as much as he'll admit to in public. (And remember that even that was pooh poohed until the DNC emails came out).
Must have missed it. I'm glad there was at least that. No, he needn't say anything about the nomination being stolen or influenced--not advisable for reasons you mention. But the basis for any positive changes going forward is fair elections. We saw--once again--how fucked up elections are. To me it's the #1 issue. Get rid of electronic voting machines; instate hand-counted paper ballots nationwide; make sure there is an adequate number of polling places.... I don't need to list what's necessary. You know it. No other initiatives make sense to me until we can manage to have fair elections. It's the first rung on the ladder. Sine qua non.
Yes, I see the political problem Bernie faces and why he won't openly talk about election fraud (although, in my view, he's already essentially burned his bridges--I don't think he's gonna get anything real out of the Clinton Party from here on out. But YMMV.)
But there actually WAS election fraud, which means that any electoral movement you start is going to have that wrench thrown into it from the beginning. And if you're conceding from the beginning that you're not going to talk about election fraud, then your electoral movement is going to be easily stoppable any time the PTB want to stop it. Since they know they'll never be held accountable for fraud, they can basically rig any electoral contest Our Revolution undertakes.
It's like having a neighbor that dumps sugar in your gas tank, but you're afraid to say anything or call the cops, so you get sugar in your gas tank regularly. Yet you decide to take a job an hour away, one which makes you depend on your car. And you don't even clean out your garage, so you can afford your car at least a bit of protection.
Add to this the fact that obviously some progressive candidates are too hot to handle for Our Revolution, like Canova. Why would Bernie not support Canova? I see no substantive reason why Our Revolution would not support a more progressive Democrat trying to take out the incredibly corrupt Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. In fact, isn't that what this electoral strategy is all about? The only reason I can come up with for Bernie not supporting Canova is that too many powerful people in DC would get mad at him if he did. I'm open to other reasons, if people can come up with them. But if that's the reason, then clearly this movement is messed up before it starts. You can't have a "revolution" of any kind without challenging the powers that be. If the only powers that be you intend to challenge are on the other side of the aisle, while you vigorously promote Democrats--but not Democrats that make the party leaders too uncomfortable--then you're not a revolutionary. You're just a Democrat who wishes the party would be more left, but are willing to put up with their constant tacking right, as long as you're allowed to voice objections.
up
0 users have voted.
—
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Just wasn't one of the five mentioned because he was selecting from various levels such as school board to state offices to US Senate. Didn't mention Tulsi either, for example, although he clearly likes her and selected her as one of his nominators.
Edited because autocorrect kept changing nominator to nomination....argh!
our meeting had even started many of us were discussing excitedly the Canova primary race. So hopefully he will be getting major support. But he should have received a major shoutout for taking on Clinton's SHEAH---it shoveler.
it's beyond bizarre that Sanders won't stump for him.
IMO, that means he got a diktat from TPTB, no stumping for the opponent, not by the guy that cost Little Debbie her DNC job. They're really afraid Canova can beat her, and they should be. It'll make me really happy if that mealy-mouthed, corrupted, cheating pig gets her ass handed to her next week.
building alternative social, community or economic institutions. What I would call autonomous zones, or a new commons. The kind of stuff that holds people together, permits new political formations, and allows a political revolution to happen. The kind of stuff that needs to happen before lots of resources are thrown at electoral campaigns, not after.
It was the obvious direction for Bernie to go, rather than rehashing Democracy for America's old strategy.
up
0 users have voted.
—
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
But even here at c99 it seems hard for most to get their heads around a politics that goes beyond deciding which candidates to support. It's probably even harder for the Sanders campaign. For me anyway, election-obsessing is about the least important thing.
I'd be happy to discuss autonomous zones (or the new commons as I sometimes refer to the thing) whenever I have the time, so here's a bit before I have to go off and do other things:
This is a rather old anarchist concept, tho I think it was Hakim Bey in his 1991 book "T.A.Z. - The Temporary Autonomous Zone" who first gave it a snappy name. Bey's concept was, um, way more new-age woo-woo-mystical than I can get into, but the basic idea is there. Murray Bookchin also famously had something to say about it, as have several other anarchist writers over the last several decades. In the late 1960s, the Diggers in San Francisco had the idea, as did the Provos in Amsterdam, and both managed to put it into practice. The Indignados movement in Spain, and a few months later Occupy here in the US, also did something with it, tho I'd say Indignados has been much more successful. I was lucky enough to be right in the middle of two: the rather large 1960s Haight Ashbury scene (working with the Diggers) and the smaller and more diffuse San Francisco punk scene in the late '70s and early '80s. I was also close enough to try (unsuccessfully) relating to the Occupys in Oakland, Berkeley and San Francisco, tho it seems they were determined to shoot themselves in the foot no matter what, which they did...
The basic idea is that as soon as enough people consciously declare themselves in opposition to to the rulers, oppositional structures and institutions can appear. Note: not must, but can. This might include new media, collectives and cooperatives of various sorts, semi-spontaneous liberation projects like People's Park in Berkeley, or organizing efforts like the Tenants Union, among others. I could probably think of more, but the important thing is that they form an ecology of opposition, reinforce each other, and are large enough to continue growing and bringing in more people, creating a culture of opposition that is self-sustaining. This is the autonomous zone.
Anyway, gotta run now. If you'd like to chime in, please do.
I think I'm a bit less spontaneous, in that I also want to deliberately build some things, as well as creating the ecology and waiting for things to arise--like for instance, obviously the efforts at indie media in this country, at least the ones opposed to what one could call the hegemony, need to be networked, and resources funneled into the network as a whole; also many communities need to be built that are also networked (Occupy came tantalizingly close to this); issues of sustainability and resilience need to be addressed locally (but none of that can be done in the absence of communities). Also, we need to look at what could actually nourish our people--both our activists and the communities they serve--however counterintuitive this may seem, we need to have some fun and not be fucking Job's messenger all the time. TThe left must ditch this puritanical kick we've been on since as long as I can remember (I was a kid in the 70s, so missed out on the time where fun and ethics could shake hands). To put it another way, when we address the people, we shouldn't be merely the bearers of bad news asking them for stuff--money, time, sometimes it seems guilt-- but we should be approaching them offering stuff that they might need or want. Also, whatever we build should be built with an eye toward the ways in which we already KNOW our enemies attack: quick, synchronized mobilizations of military force, character assassination and misinformation in the press. IOW, we should not focus only on the negative, nor be paranoid, but neither should we be the folks who are perennially surprised that some jerk came around to destroy what we're doing.
Does any of this make sense? I am just brainstorming here.
up
0 users have voted.
—
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
If I have time I will try to tie it all together into something more readable, which someone will hopefully read (I have doubts about that....). Anyway, gotta run again.
where people were in some cases for the first time being with other progressives, i.e., there were some people who were newbies and had not actively participated in Sanders campaign events. I'm glad he steered clear of the Clinton endorsement issue, although he did mention the areas of Democratic Party platform influence and suggest in a couple of areas that he thought she would sincerely fight for the things she says she now believes in.
I feel like solidarity is being born in out of the way places. I'm actually more politically encouraged than I've ever been. We will nourish each other as revolutionaries going forward. A shy elderly woman asked if I'd help her with letters to the editor. A young man and woman were discussing their ideas for a long time with me after the meeting. It was great.
about how to do grassroots outreach in our area. It will involve in part building alliances with Black Lives Matter and other compatible movements. There was a lot of excitement about inclusivity, and being in the south that's particularly exciting and rational.
been confronted in our area will be one tactic. Overall, I felt the energy for grassroots activism was quite high. A lot of the folks were from outside the south originally and felt a sense of missionary commitment to the disenfranchised and down and out, which is good.
rather than whoever it was who gave a speech endorsing Hillary & speaking at the convention.
I like that Larry Cohen, former pres of the communication workers of America is heading up Our Revolution's board.
I know a lot of people don't like weaver, but I didn't have a problem with him during the primaries. Other than Nina, I thought he was the best surrogate for Bernie. (But the money thing worries me)
As others have said, I picked up on the use of progressive in his speech. The progressive democrats of America had a Facebook post up this week about how they were kind of the people who pushed Bernie to run, so I wonder if there's an informal alliance there with our revolution.
I knew about the single payer initiative in Colorado, but I did not know about the drug price proposition (prop 61) in California.
Of course the TPP stuff was good to hear.
Whenever Bernie mentions how important it is to run for school board, I'm reminded of the approach the republicans took to take over states and congress.
My watch party ended up being 4 people + me. All people I hadn't met before at Bernie events. None of us millennials.
And "be that change" really grabbed my attention.
I hate that Shannon Jackson indicated that it will take them quite awhile to roll out all the candidates they support on the website. We need time for our donations, phonebanking & canvassing to add up.
Edited to add: I didn't write down the numbers Shannon had on the number of people watching, but it was a boatload of people.
or at least that was part of it. Has any attempt been made by anyone here to contact the people who quit?
up
0 users have voted.
—
"The war on Gaza, backed by the West, is a demonstration that the West is willing to cross all lines. That it will discard any nuance of humanity. That it is willing to commit genocide" -- Moon of Alabama
over thirty years. So in a way he hinted that the dispute over Weaver is in so far not justified, because "he worked with him very closely for a very long time". So, I guess the dispute over Weaver isn't something that will make Sanders change his mind about him. I thought that shows who he is, his own man.In general I respect people who don't get impressed easily by outsider's disputes.
Here it might be good to reflect upon the role Bernie Sanders played for most of the past thirty years -- that of the "amendment king" in a system existing largely to protect capitalism as it chews up and spits out planet Earth. Is that what we want from Our Revolution -- a few more "amendment kings"?
I presume the people who quit aren't just automatically going to disappear from the world or give up on politics. Perhaps there might be something to finding out what's happening with them?
up
0 users have voted.
—
"The war on Gaza, backed by the West, is a demonstration that the West is willing to cross all lines. That it will discard any nuance of humanity. That it is willing to commit genocide" -- Moon of Alabama
You were pissing on the Green Party & stein, saying that they weren't good enough.
Now using amendments to get things done like Bernie has isn't good enough.
What the hell will it take to satisfy you? Because to me, a few more Bernie's in the House & senate sounds a hell of a lot better than more Schumers & McCaskills.
you might also be interested to consider the reasons I gave in the diary I published for why we might consider "replacing the Green Party." My main assertion is that it's a legitimate concern to ask whether or not a very small party is ready to contend, or if it's merely that the gatekeepers of the Green Party will keep it small. Do you agree or disagree?
Here in this thread I'm asking whether or not the Bernie Sanders "political revolution" has to start with Jeff Weaver, or if there might also be a role in it for the people who quit what appears to be his organization. That's all I'm asking. I'm not asking for anyone to satisfy ME. Is that question really all that out-of-bounds?
Let's throw in another reality check here: as far as "getting things done" with climate change mitigation is concerned, everyone in DC deserves a big fat negative number. The problem is getting worse, and the government is one of the main culprits. So should we be satisfied with the existing pace of change?
up
0 users have voted.
—
"The war on Gaza, backed by the West, is a demonstration that the West is willing to cross all lines. That it will discard any nuance of humanity. That it is willing to commit genocide" -- Moon of Alabama
"The war on Gaza, backed by the West, is a demonstration that the West is willing to cross all lines. That it will discard any nuance of humanity. That it is willing to commit genocide" -- Moon of Alabama
In private call, DNC flexes unity with Clinton camp and Sanders team
“I know that sometimes in primaries there can be sharp elbows, and I hope I haven’t bumped into too many of you,” Weaver said on the call. “But as we go forward into the general election, I’m very happy to be working with members of the Clinton team in trying to get the secretary elected.” http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/dnc-sanders-clinton-strategy-state...
Not much doubt in my mind why most of Bernie's top campaign team left?
up
0 users have voted.
—
Donnie The #ShitHole Douchebag. Fake Friend to the Working Class. Real Asshole.
if they would be willing to work for another political organization, and, if so, what would that other political organization look like?
At any rate, thank you for finding them CSTS!
up
0 users have voted.
—
"The war on Gaza, backed by the West, is a demonstration that the West is willing to cross all lines. That it will discard any nuance of humanity. That it is willing to commit genocide" -- Moon of Alabama
So what kind of organization is "Our Revolution"? What is it?
As Tak remarks, it's 100% directed at electoral politics.
As A. Budarin points out, it makes no effort to be a political party.
I definitely see a progression from Howard Dean to New Progressive Alliance to Occupy to Bernie and OR. With a little bit of Tea Party's methodology thrown in.
If I'm sitting within the Dem or Repub Party apparatus and looking at this thing, well, it appears like an alien that just landed. One that can reach 20 million people and move into myriad (progressive) issues as required, while also getting bodies into the streets.
Schumer wants DWS. If he's speaker next session he has control over who is on what committee. Sanders is head of budget unless he pisses off Schumer. I think he's throwing Canova overboard in exchange for becoming head of budget. It's a tough choice, but it's what I would do. Obama, Biden, Schumer & Clinton are all campaigning hard for DWS. I don't know why she's so important to them IRL, but I know the banks really want her and are somehow tying this to the funding of the presidential library. It really sucks.
Make of it what you will.
up
0 users have voted.
—
There are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know.
That Bernie has expressed a desire to chair the Heath & human services committee (the name is something like that) if The dems regain the majority in the senate and if Patty Murray doesn't want it. (This is the committee ted Kennedy chaired. From it Bernie can push single payer & $15 minimum wage, among other things.)
Comments
So far
he has spoken about women's rights and gay rights, as examples of how change takes place in this country (from the grassroots up).
Nobody wants to admit that
LGBT rights were only able to move forward because we essentially, got permission:
https://www.queerty.com/hrc-appoints-goldman-sachs-honcho-as-new-marriag...
That was when I unsubscribed and stopped donating to the Human Rights Campaign.
But sending Blankfein to advocate on the Hill for them was essentially telling Congress: "It's OK, really, the big bosses don't mind! You can pretend we're a republic now. Just pay attention to what the people want, and if we can get enough of them on our side, move forward--just like the old days."
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
thanks for the link
I never knew that Blankfein gave his "blessing"
It's kind of depressing, but explains
some of the later conservatism around LGBT communities--lots of support for Hillary, etc.
The movements that used to be solidly left-wing have essentially been picked off one by one.
But, of course, there's always people who don't go along, and new movements that arise.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
The oligarchy really doesn't care much about those issues
Let's face it, they can still rake in the mega-profits and control the political process. Sure, it's a big deal for those whose lives are greatly affected, but these identity politics issues have little to zero impact on either the existence of the oligarchs or how they function to maintain their wealth and power. Handy for keeping people divided, however!
Sure!
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
It's boring
: (
For the first time, it sounds like rhetoric to me. Listing accomplishments of the campaign, etc.
I wish he would speak to us! Acknowledge the fact that we haven't heard from him in a long time. Acknowledge that many of us may be disappointed, confused, feeling lost...
But he's basically just doing his stump speech.
Hard to justify what he's been doing.
Not that I'm mad at him--I'm not. But it makes it difficult, perhaps, for him to speak authentically, given the elephant (or donkey?) in the room.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
yes, he comes off as inauthentic
by ignoring the big donkephant in the room.
I knew from the outset what this "revolution" livestream was going to be like--that's why I didn't go to the viewing party a canvassing friend invited me to. But then I saw a link and thought I'd watch...
Ach
sooo...
You went into it with a negative attitude, and came out the same.
I personally was pleased that he never once mentioned, or pressed for support for the Democratic Party, or Hillary Clinton ( well he did mention in passing, but only to reference changes, and influence his platform had on her campaign rhetoric and policies on tuition, and healthcare initiatives. Not word one on supporting HRC, or how bad Trump is.) . He mentioned the changes brought about in the national discussion of issues from LGBT rights, to the economic inequity, to student debt, free tuition at public colleges and universities, universal healthcare, the environment, private prisons and judicial reform. The only mention of the DNC was in defending the influence his supporters had on the Democratic Party Platform, which is at the root of the issues OR ( Our Revolution) will continue to demand attention to. He had a substantial discussion of TPP, and the negative consequences, mainly the danger of the Investor State Dispute resolution language, and the TransCanada lawsuit demanding a $15 billion dollar settlement for the US shutting down the Keystone Pipeline.. He pointedly called out Obama's support of the TPP as "dead wrong", He mentioned as well the Phillip Morris lawsuit seeking remedy for Uruguay showing explicit photos on Cigarette packs. His quote regarding trade deals was that "trade deals are good for Corporations, not American Citizens, or ordinary people anywhere".
He pointed out the main issues that OR feels are paramount.... they were not only efforts to bring progressive candidates, but also progressive issues to the table for support from the organization. he pointed out 5 of 100 or so candidates that OR will be supporting, from school board to state legislators to Senator Russ Feingold ( which I found interesting as Russ came out for Hillary long before the convention)
The ballot initiatives that will garner OR support will similarly be focused on several primary efforts at the ballot box, to include proposals to overturn Citizens United, automatic voter registration, single payer healthcare proposal in Colorado, Prop 61 in California to limit prescription drug prices to Veterans Admin equivalent,and support for reform of the criminal justice system, immigration, and Native American Rights.
There you have it!! My brief synopsis of The launch of "Our Revolution".
I'm a firm believer in no effort in, no positive outcome. I think it was a positive effort from Bernie to continue his platform at a legislative, and national discourse level. The tepid response will be from those who can't overcome the disappointment in the Democratic Party Primary. I too am disappointed, but feel it is an organization worth consideration, and respect from any of us who supported his candidacy. I won't be donating right away, but I won't be trash talking the initiative either
I didn't think katchen was trash-talking
And, although I rec'd your comment above for its detail and the commitment you obviously feel to the fight, your last paragraph mischaracterizes critics, I think.
I wouldn't like to assume that anybody here puts "no effort in." The automatic assumption that a critic of a proposed action is a lazy layabout keyboard warrior is one I saw often on DK, and it seems pretty baseless.
Then there's the implication that those of us who have problems with this course of action just can't get over a loss.
"The tepid response will be from those who can't overcome the disappointment in the Democratic Party Primary." That's possible. Or, the tepid response could be from people who don't think this is going to be a fruitful course of action, since Dean just did the same thing from 2004-2008, with net negative results.
I'm not saying that supporting progressive candidates is wrong (though it seems foolish for them to run under the banner of the party that takes out million-dollar ad buys against progressive incumbent candidates like Alan Grayson), and certainly ballot initiatives are worth pursuing; but in a year in which we saw more blatant election fraud and voter suppression than I've ever seen--and I was in FL in 2000--I'd think we have other concerns. And in a year in which both major parties committed themselves fully to attacking our views--which is what Hillary v Trump and ad buys taken out against Grayson amounts to--it seems foolish to simply continue affiliating with the Democratic Party as if a plucky effort is all that's needed.
"I too am disappointed but feel it is an organization worth consideration and respect"
Obviously, you have the right to any opinion about Our Revolution. Here's my feeling: it's worth consideration (and I'll be watching to see what happens with it) but, given the history of this strategy option (Dean), an extraordinarily hostile DNC whose aim seems to be to stamp out progressivism at least as much or more as its aim is to defeat Republicans, and widespread election fraud, it's not automatically worth respect. I'm not sure what that quick respect would be based on, other than an affection and loyalty for Sanders. I have that affection, and that loyalty, but that doesn't mean I automatically respect every choice he makes.
We're free people. If we disagree with Bernie, that doesn't make us lazy, quick to succumb to disappointment and give up the fight, or treacherous to Bernie (not that you suggested that, but others have, on Twitter most notably). This is a difference of opinion on strategy. Friends have them.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Points well taken
I take your commentary with grace, even though you seemed to take some of my generalizations harshly. Yesterday, and a couple of days before, it was interesting that the media dumped a couple of disparaging stories,( similar to their methodology during the primary) in what seems to be an effort to discredit the OR strategy. As I said, I'll watch to see how this pans out. So much of the negativity surrounding Sander's inability to overcome the fixed game in the primary seems to be sour grapes. If you were for his platform then, why take a negative stance on an effort by some of his supporters to continue to advance issues that the primary proved were striking a cord all across the country, and inclusive of a broad demographic. I'd suggest that all of us put aside our disappointment, and as we do here, agree to disagree...that is where I feel justified in suggesting the movement is worth consideration and respect. I made a comment referring to my personal takeaway of the presentation by Bernie last night. I didn't say that anyone was to jump on board, no questions asked. Suggesting a tepid response was to multiple comments from one party that were definitively negative...well before the body of Bernie's presentation had even been made. I used an analogy of many life experiences; sports, marriage, business, etc., to note that going into anything with a negative attitude usually results in a less than positive outcome. If you are sure you are going to lose...you usually do.
I have not spent huge amounts of time researching efforts to continue political momentum by losing candidates, but in my 44 years of voting, I have seen many exceptional ideals laid waste by apathy...starting with the national movements in the 60's and 70's...civil rights, womens' rights, the anti-war/anti establishment idealism of that period, environmental movements, LGBT rights, Black Lives Matter, judicial reform...all of which have had groundswells of support, only to have many of them swept into the dustbin of apathy. Take war for instance....We have been engaged militarily somewhere every since the Vietnam War. The War on Drugs has been a targeted effort where administrations actually were in the business of supplying drugs to communities of color. It has resulted in mass incarceration, with a disproportionate number of imprisoned being young, underprivileged, black men. Take a good look at the titans of finance, and government; at their youthful enthusiasm for one, or many of these movements, and at the ultimate direction that the lure of wealth and power took them. Anti war protesters are vilified as unpatriotic by MSM today. We as 99%ers are viewed as having our hand out for freebies. BLM protesters are considered rabble rousers, and Black teen-agers labeled as thugs, super predators, etc.. Milennials are looked at, and considered by many as lazy, basement dwelling, users. No mention of skyrocketing costs for education, housing, vehicles, insurance, healthcare...idealism is a shortlived sugar buzz that too many of us, myself included, are unwilling to maintain over time.
Last night Bernie put forth an effort to break that cycle, and it was a non starter before it even happened for many here at this site. I can't imagine what is being written at TOP
Sorry if I took anything more harshly than intended!
As for apathy--well, where you see apathy, I see the effects of a massive cultural war. Cultural, political, economic.
When you spend thirty years dropping bombs on something, it's not surprising that, at the end of that time, that something is not at its best.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
I'm so glad you can't stop the signal, CStS!
because you perfectly described my position on OR--with this phrase most of all: "it seems foolish to simply continue affiliating with the Democratic Party as if a plucky effort is all that's needed."
I'm over my disappointment with the primary and working daily on ways I can put the insights Sanders taught me into action--locally and, where possible, beyond that. I am not, however, over my disappointment with the Democratic party, for distrust has grown over decades and this time around the frayed tether just snapped.
Not just my signal. :-)
Not me, us.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
What's the meaning of "Ach" there :-) Sounds German to me ...
I went to a "watch party" that was in a McDonalds. Of the 17 people, who signed up, 10 came. We hunkered around my laptop and tried to listen to the live stream. All were at least in their sixties with several women much older. I tried to ask what they are going to support and vote for. All the elderly women but one said Hillary Clinton, saying they are very well aware of all she has done wrong, but they were all afraid of Trump winning. Three I think supported Jill Stein.
It was a sad "party".
Very sickly people and homeless sitting not far from us inside the McDonalds. No one looked. It's hard work to ignore the signs of people's decay in mental and physical health. I have the feeling that in my area many more sickly people around, suffering.
As I don't think that there is something else to do, one can as well register with "Our Revolution" or whatever it's called. If and for whom you vote is none of everyone's business, so you can support Jill Stein, sign up with "Our Revolution" and do some local support of specific legislative initiatives and support some local candidates for local offices, all of it, because nothing will be accomplished otherwise, probably.A multi-tasking resistance effort, may be.
https://www.euronews.com/
"eine traurige Fete"...
aber immerhin--du hast etwas unternommen.
traurig, I always leave real space events like that saddened,
I can't tell people why. They would be even more sad and that's not what they need. The most difficult part for me is doing something despite the fact that I feel completely discouraged that it makes any difference. So, I force myself to "think positively". Which is totally against my nature and the way I was brought up.
https://www.euronews.com/
Ach, Du lieber Augustin,
Alles ist weg!
Geld ist weg, Maed'l ist weg
Alles ist weg!
There are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know.
lol, I think among all the things "weg", there are many unknown
unknowns, still....:-)
https://www.euronews.com/
Positiv denken
scheint gegen die Natur der Mittel- und Osteuropäer zu sein.
There are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know.
seems like a generalization
maybe just depends on what point in time you're looking. My extended family of germanic immigrants are relentlessly positiv! Gets on my nerves, lol. My English-descended relatives are the sour, downbeat ones.
I understand how you feel Mimi
The event I was at skewed old and sick. I caucused for Bernie, however, in the primaries and the pro-Bernie caucusers skewed young and maybe not athletic but at least energetic. I will make a couple of points, one obvious and one maybe less obvious. The first is that we need to reach and involve young people. One awful consequence of the Clinton nomination is that it has turned off a lot of young people. The second is that we on the left have become to accustomed to, and accepting of, losing. We do too much whining and not enough working and organizing and we need to be smarter. The regressive and repressive leadership of the DNC and the national party is not invulnerable. There is lots of scope for fixing/taking over local democratic parties. In some places Greens are a viable alternative. Most of all, however, we need to start getting younger, progressive, energetic people involved. We need to think about how to do that. I did not get a clear enough view of Our Revolution last night to know if it is an organization that might help in this, but the need clearly exists.
The Boomers here at C99
are an awesome minority within their generation, who tack against their generation's current political leanings (sort of like I did in the 80s, when my generation was largely going for Reagan). Hillary does pretty well with people over 60. Has through this whole season. It's folks under 50 she has a problem with.
So don't be too discouraged. You were talking to her demographic; it's not surprising that 70% of them would support her, and fall for the foolish FEAR TRUMP! talking point.
We are still in the majority. Hillary's unfavorables are near 58%. And that's after a convention bump, with Bernie stumping for her, and nobody up there to contrast with her other than Trump.
The majority of the people aren't buying it.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
all these elderly women I met reacted to remarks Bernie made
abouit the suffragette movement and the women's fight to vote way back in the days. Their faces saddened, they nodded in agreement and it's may be one of the haunting memories they have about hard times they went through. I think they are dead serious about not to not slip those into foggy polemic. I think they believe that Hillary will be the one, who won't let this happen. I don't have a heart to suggest it might not be the case. And I don't even know if to suggest something like this about HRC is true.These women were old and tired and delicate. And they certainly know better than me the realities of their living conditions way back and today.
https://www.euronews.com/
It's not about whether or not folks
know best what's going on for them in their lives. It's about whether they can be convinced to settle for scraps.
It's about whether people can be convinced to follow someone who's going to hurt them, by beefing up an external threat.
Of course they can, but not always. The more you watch conventional media, the greater your likelihood of being convinced. At least that's my best guess.
All I'm really saying is, don't fall back into the idea that we are a tiny minority shouting in the wilderness. The PTB love it when people like us feel like that, and they do all they can to foster that belief. We're not a minority. We're a majority without a vehicle for political expression. We're a majority with a handful of tiny social scraps left to connect us, after 4 decades of hurricane winds shredded our social and civic structure. But we're not a minority. I've never been in a larger majority (of Americans) in my life.
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rAGt8XXzBM]
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
oh, I agree with you and I won't fall back into believing
that a large majority of the people are NOT aware what is being done to them. I think the "little people of the 99 percent" can't be fooled that easily, but they can be oppressed and they are. It's just kind of heart-and soul braking to see that we don't know how to express ourselves in public and get control over the those, who will harm and betray and skillfully silence us and render us frozen and mute.
I also think among the elderly generation are so many immigrants who fled from Nazi Germany's AND from Communists that they are more vulnerable to the fear mongering about a right-wing, white supremacist supported Trump presidency. I don't blame them. It's one of the reasons I never could understand how some might think of voting for Trump as a "strategic vote" against Clinton. I also can't vote for Clinton, because of the foreign policies she supported, she, Obama and the preceding presidents, including GWBush, Bill Clinton, Papa Bush and Reagan. I wonder how many "elderly" are really aware of how much those foreign policies have influenced little people around the world to be "upset". My hunch is that in European countries they rather like to deal with a Clinton than with a Trump. Those are the realities, I think. How nice it would have been if a Sanders could have been elected and lead a meaningful social left movement. Instead we see how the influence of international oligarchs infiltrating internationally and co-opting politicians there and make a mess out of almost every country in the world.
https://www.euronews.com/
Great comment!
"The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"
Thanks!
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
As incomes have remained stagnant or even declined,
people have become used to the idea of austerity, which made it easy for TPTB to sell it as an economic policy. Incrementalism has worked quite well for TPTB. We'll need to push back much more to overcome our inexorable slide toward greater and greater poverty. I'm a boomer, BTW.
"The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"
"first modern propaganda machinery"
"the suffragette movement and the women's fight to vote way back in the days"
blah blah blah Torches of Freedom!
blah blah blah Glass Ceiling! ad infinitum. Play with propaganda instead of directly fixing shit, yeah no. Just say no to
political"consultants", we're all experts now.Yet another dot org choosing Objective Reality #1 most workers again left forever struggling in #2. I say No Thanks to Public Relations brainwashing! Oligarch politics are bullshit and we live in an oligarchy. Do the math?
Thanks
interesting video
reminds me that my mother smoked at the end of wwII til some time after 1950. Because smoking killed hunger feelings and because those women in that time had lost any support from missing male partners and husbands due to the war and got accustomed to "struggle on their own" and became independent individuals. Then they struggled to get rid of the smoking addiction for the next 15 years.
I had no idea the PR and propaganda machinery goes that far back in the US historical political toolbox.
https://www.euronews.com/
First heard in "Century of the Self"
I never could think the same again after this documentary:
Century of The Self - Episode 4 - Eight People Sipping Wine in Kettering
Skip to the closing minute, Robert Reich, oy!
Chris Hedges speaks a lot about Edward Bernays, nephew of
Sigmund Freud, and the destruction wrought from his devising pro-war propaganda and marketing slogans based on their subconscious appeal.
His findings were used to lay the groundwork for political propaganda here. Deployed in the run-up to the First World War, the Creel Commission was formed to swing a staunchly anti-war populace behind the American war effort. "Four Minute Men" began to pop up in the packed popular movie houses of the time to rile up nationalistic war fervor. Hollywood chipped in too.
Bernays took his uncle's work and used it to manipulate people into supporting the government's desire for war and buying things (i.e. cigarettes) that would kill them.
"If I should ever die, God forbid, let this be my epitaph:
THE ONLY PROOF HE NEEDED
FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
WAS MUSIC"
- Kurt Vonnegut
thx to you and eyo for the video links,
that's the stuff I wasn't exposed to in my early years in Germany and didn't learn later on. Very creepy and interesting and disgusting.
Thanks for introducing that to me. A nephew of Sigmund Freud ... damn, who would have thought....
https://www.euronews.com/
asdf
As I don't think that there is something else to do, one can as well register with "Our Revolution" or whatever it's called.
Let's invent something else to do.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
"Our Second Revolution"?
like "Doppelt hält besser". /just kidding.
I watched Democracy NOW this morning with a discussion between the CEO Larry Cohen and Claire Sandberg starting at TC 46:42. Claire Sandberg made it clear what stood behind the dissent of the group that split off. I can understand why Larry Cohen is not the most convincing guy...
It seems to be all about the money and how it could or could not be raised and who can do what with the organization under a legal structure of a 501c4 organization. As always "Bei Geld hört die Freundschaft auf." (But I don't go into the meaning or translation of this again, it caused some disputes before).
Ok, when I don't know what to think about something, I usually sleep over it, wait and see and hope it will become clear to me in the future. I am good at sitting something out and wait and watch.
I hope in my dreams that "the something else" will pop up and make me all exited again.
https://www.euronews.com/
I worry about the 501c4 structure as well
My local feed was cut off too early and I did not get an idea of how they think this will play out. My personal view is that the organization should be explicitly political and not an non-profit. Most Bernie contributors do not make enough to itemize taxes anyway. My model, I think, would be an organization that funds selected campaigns and finds smart young people to work with/drive those campaigns, creating a new generation of committed, progressive campaigners.
my translation
would be: "Money can end a friendship."
Sorry, I don't know what the previous comments were about this. Or, we could just agree that "Money is the root of all evil."
Money is destroying (has destroyed?) U.S. politics, and many other worthwhile things.
Thanks! My faith will Bern
Thanks! My faith will Bern forever - he managed way more than could have been thought possible against entrenched corruption not only locally but internationally, against corrupt political actors and parties and the billionaires and corporate interests most others feared to challenge. We could have survived, with Bernie - had the rigged nomination not been left to stand and embolden the enemy poised for a hostile corporate take-over any real democracy would fight tooth and nail if not headed by those bought out/blackmailed/bullied by such destructive interests.
But Bernie's still fighting for The People as best he can, and because of him, many more of The People are now aware that we have to fight for ourselves.
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
I'm with him, not her that's for sure.
He has an unparalleled sense of the left wing of the possible and can help to lead this country forward on a number of issues benefiting the working class. As I said below in my comment, I'm actually psyched!
Sanders--as he puts it--has changed the conversation.
Instead of talking about knitting doilies, we now talk about how to stop the TPP (well those of us who are not sulking). I thought he laid out the coming agenda for change quite well. Pointing out what has been accomplished helps see where we are on solid ground and where we need to dig in and focus our efforts. He--without actually saying it--also proposed a number of ways to get around the corporate media blackout of issues that matter to people: learn the facts and talk to people--neighbors, co-workers, family.
Altogether, it was nothing less than what I expected from Sanders, and I am willing to get to work to make changes.
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.--Aristotle
If there is no struggle there is no progress.--Frederick Douglass
I'm getting to work too!
A little of good basic grassroots thinking is going on, and that's a very good thing. Well said.
"Sulking?"
Wow.
Obviously, time to build something new. No point in sitting around watching the movement spit on itself--although I will check in from time to time, just to see how things are faring.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
It sounds like "Our Revolution" has the same objectives as the
"New Progressive Alliance," or NPA.
Our Revolution:
NPA:
I think it's noteworthy that neither Our Revolution nor the NPA is proposing to function as a political party.
"All Life is Problem Solving" - Karl Popper
Not in the slightest
It's like the Judean Peoples' Front vs the Popular Front of Judea!
Or the Kommunistische Partei Deutschlands (KPD) and the Deutsche Kommunistische Partei (DKP) of the BRD, ca 1972. I think the DKP were the "standard" Moscow-oriented party, whilst the smaller KPD was allied with Maoism. The 1972 election was convincingly won by the Brandt-Scheel coalition.
If I remember, neither had much to do with the DDR's Sozialistische Einheitspartei Deutschlands (SED).
Splittism!
BIIIG difference!
/sn
There are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know.
What happens when you split hairs too finely?
You get dust. Pardon me, but my college German language course has not abided with me. However, it is fair to bring in Mr. Godwin again. After all, we are talking about the same thing occurring now, with separate but similar movements not coalescing so as to increase the strength of their positions, because, hey, they aren't "identical". This has been a problem for the Left since early 20th Century. Maybe the nature of the beast--Lefties are about individual freedom and public (social) responsibility. The Right has always been rather authoritarian, surrender to group-think, get-in-line. As a result, Right Wing groups coalesce (or, perhaps, clot is a better word).
In the Weimar Republic before Adolph & Co. took over, there were about 14 different labor parties. They couldn't get their acts together to present a united front opposing the Brown Shirts--and these parties were picked off one-by-one. The Left still has not learned the lesson--it's okay to be a free thinker but to gain political power the Left must gain cohesion--not 100% agreement on everything but enough common ground to oppose the PTB and the Right.
Yes, absolutely. I think Bernie showed us that a true firebrand
could light up the real left. And that they can and will coalesce.
The only other thing I see about the liberals/progressives, is the inclusiveness which allows for nay sayers, people with "fringe" ideas, even for liberal/progressives. It causes fractures before getting off the ground.
Liberal/progressives are ready, most of the time, to listen to anyone who seems to have their head on straight and done some homework. This way of doing things provides almost too much to take in or to decide what to support.
I don't think I have an answer for this, but I sure would like to know what happened to Bernie and Jane, because I believe from everything I heard and saw, and DH as well, that he is the real deal and acceptable.
As a thirty year politician, Bernie may have looked around toward the end and decided, that he was going to get the best deal he could. The not speaking to those of us who wanted to support his agenda, is troublesome.
Some speculation is that is as simple as Bernie not wanting to be a "spoiler" or to incite a mob mentality (you those pitchforks) or a 'treasonous" rebellion.
I really don't know and wish we all did.
You may choose to look the other way, but you can never say again you did not know. ~ William Wiberforce
If you can donate, please! POP Money is available for bank-to-bank transfers. Email JtC to make a monthly donation.
Yes, this
but is the Democratic Party even capable of performing this unifying function? If not, what can possibly be done to make it capable? Or would it be more effective to try to form a "united front" that is at least to some degree independent of the Democratic Party?
And who exactly, are the "Brownshirts" in this context, that we are meant to oppose? If they are Trump's rightist supporters, to what extent should we, or must unite with Clinton's team of neoliberal corporatists to oppose them? It's all very well to recommend a united front, but sometimes an unreliable ally can be more dangerous than a determined foe.
native
No, it really is more substantive than that.
See my comment above.
Of course Splittism is happening, but there's a real (and pressing) strategic critique underneath this split. In other words, we just did this and we ended up going the opposite direction from "having a major voice"--we ended up with next to no voice. So why would we do the same thing again?
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Thanks for the link and reminder
I missed the first 25 minutes unfortunately, or maybe fortunately if Sanders didn't say much of anything before then. I couldn't help but notice a few things however:
- Lots of talk about Clinton's promises to support this or that. Can I say that I'll believe it when it happens? Somehow I don't think Bernie is that gullible, so what does he say when it doesn't happen?
- Quote "We ran a great campaign, we woke up the American people." Well yes, I'll concede that. As a matter of fact, it's remarkable. I was very skeptical when he announced last year, figuring oh well, he'll get a few more people to listen and that will be that. What actually happened however (my own impression) is that he ended up changing the national political conversation even more than Occupy did several years ago. This is a good thing, and necessary, but not enough.
- Another quote "We must never allow oligarchy to become our system of government." But of course it already is. Practically nothing substantial happens that isn't endorsed by one or the other faction of the oligarchy, even at the local level. The 2 or 3 principal factions sometimes fight it out to decide, but they make the decisions, not us. Until very large numbers of people understand this, we won't be able to make a change.
- Apparently this new group is 100% conventional electoral politics. They will be supporting 100 candidates and 7 ballot propositions around the country, running your standard political campaigns. There was no word, not one, about building alternative social, community or economic institutions. What I would call autonomous zones, or a new commons. The kind of stuff that holds people together, permits new political formations, and allows a political revolution to happen. The kind of stuff that needs to happen before lots of resources are thrown at electoral campaigns, not after.
So there ya go, my 2 cents...
what I noticed...
yes, to the 3rd thing on your list. Bernie went from "our system is an oligarchy," to "we are drifting towards oligarchy" (somewhere in Apr/May), to "we must never allow oligarchy to become our system of government." He was right the first time (as you noted).
He listed some candidates that would be supported. No mention of Canova.
He listed at least 10 issues that would be supported. No mention of voter suppression/fraud.
Actually, I think he did mention voter suppression.
At least in the sense that we need automatic registration at 18.
Did you mean "Hillary stealing the nomination?" He's never going to address that in the way so many of his supporters want. Look at the reaction to Trump saying things are rigged; the media paints him as crazy.
And if Bernie had said stuff like that, he would be painted as crazy also. He was already fighting the wild haired kook meme. If he said stuff like trump said re election fraud he'd be lucky to be covered as well as Kuchinich.
He did say that we took on the entire democratic establishment. That's as much as he'll admit to in public. (And remember that even that was pooh poohed until the DNC emails came out).
I didn't hear the automatic registration at 18 part
Must have missed it. I'm glad there was at least that. No, he needn't say anything about the nomination being stolen or influenced--not advisable for reasons you mention. But the basis for any positive changes going forward is fair elections. We saw--once again--how fucked up elections are. To me it's the #1 issue. Get rid of electronic voting machines; instate hand-counted paper ballots nationwide; make sure there is an adequate number of polling places.... I don't need to list what's necessary. You know it. No other initiatives make sense to me until we can manage to have fair elections. It's the first rung on the ladder. Sine qua non.
Curious what you think of
open source voting? It's not catching on too fast (of course!) but it might be the answer to problems of election fraud.
OK, here's the problem.
Yes, I see the political problem Bernie faces and why he won't openly talk about election fraud (although, in my view, he's already essentially burned his bridges--I don't think he's gonna get anything real out of the Clinton Party from here on out. But YMMV.)
But there actually WAS election fraud, which means that any electoral movement you start is going to have that wrench thrown into it from the beginning. And if you're conceding from the beginning that you're not going to talk about election fraud, then your electoral movement is going to be easily stoppable any time the PTB want to stop it. Since they know they'll never be held accountable for fraud, they can basically rig any electoral contest Our Revolution undertakes.
It's like having a neighbor that dumps sugar in your gas tank, but you're afraid to say anything or call the cops, so you get sugar in your gas tank regularly. Yet you decide to take a job an hour away, one which makes you depend on your car. And you don't even clean out your garage, so you can afford your car at least a bit of protection.
Add to this the fact that obviously some progressive candidates are too hot to handle for Our Revolution, like Canova. Why would Bernie not support Canova? I see no substantive reason why Our Revolution would not support a more progressive Democrat trying to take out the incredibly corrupt Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. In fact, isn't that what this electoral strategy is all about? The only reason I can come up with for Bernie not supporting Canova is that too many powerful people in DC would get mad at him if he did. I'm open to other reasons, if people can come up with them. But if that's the reason, then clearly this movement is messed up before it starts. You can't have a "revolution" of any kind without challenging the powers that be. If the only powers that be you intend to challenge are on the other side of the aisle, while you vigorously promote Democrats--but not Democrats that make the party leaders too uncomfortable--then you're not a revolutionary. You're just a Democrat who wishes the party would be more left, but are willing to put up with their constant tacking right, as long as you're allowed to voice objections.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Canova is listed on the OR website as a recommended candidate.
Just wasn't one of the five mentioned because he was selecting from various levels such as school board to state offices to US Senate. Didn't mention Tulsi either, for example, although he clearly likes her and selected her as one of his nominators.
Edited because autocorrect kept changing nominator to nomination....argh!
In fairness, Tulsi is a safe bet.
Very blue seat, already won her primary. Canova is someone who really could have used the boost tonight since his primary is less than a week away.
True. Interestingly, I will say that before
our meeting had even started many of us were discussing excitedly the Canova primary race. So hopefully he will be getting major support. But he should have received a major shoutout for taking on Clinton's SHEAH---it shoveler.
Re: Canova
it's beyond bizarre that Sanders won't stump for him.
IMO, that means he got a diktat from TPTB, no stumping for the opponent, not by the guy that cost Little Debbie her DNC job. They're really afraid Canova can beat her, and they should be. It'll make me really happy if that mealy-mouthed, corrupted, cheating pig gets her ass handed to her next week.
Good point. I hope that some of this will naturally
arise over the long term through people working together who otherwise would not have done so.
But not, apparently, Tim Canova.
According to dkmich, Bernie isn't returning his phone calls.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
according to Canova himself
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/house-races/292423-canova-waiting-fo...
Excellent analysis, Tak.
Are you up for more discussion of this?
building alternative social, community or economic institutions. What I would call autonomous zones, or a new commons. The kind of stuff that holds people together, permits new political formations, and allows a political revolution to happen. The kind of stuff that needs to happen before lots of resources are thrown at electoral campaigns, not after.
It was the obvious direction for Bernie to go, rather than rehashing Democracy for America's old strategy.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Yes, it does seem obvious
But even here at c99 it seems hard for most to get their heads around a politics that goes beyond deciding which candidates to support. It's probably even harder for the Sanders campaign. For me anyway, election-obsessing is about the least important thing.
I'd be happy to discuss autonomous zones (or the new commons as I sometimes refer to the thing) whenever I have the time, so here's a bit before I have to go off and do other things:
This is a rather old anarchist concept, tho I think it was Hakim Bey in his 1991 book "T.A.Z. - The Temporary Autonomous Zone" who first gave it a snappy name. Bey's concept was, um, way more new-age woo-woo-mystical than I can get into, but the basic idea is there. Murray Bookchin also famously had something to say about it, as have several other anarchist writers over the last several decades. In the late 1960s, the Diggers in San Francisco had the idea, as did the Provos in Amsterdam, and both managed to put it into practice. The Indignados movement in Spain, and a few months later Occupy here in the US, also did something with it, tho I'd say Indignados has been much more successful. I was lucky enough to be right in the middle of two: the rather large 1960s Haight Ashbury scene (working with the Diggers) and the smaller and more diffuse San Francisco punk scene in the late '70s and early '80s. I was also close enough to try (unsuccessfully) relating to the Occupys in Oakland, Berkeley and San Francisco, tho it seems they were determined to shoot themselves in the foot no matter what, which they did...
The basic idea is that as soon as enough people consciously declare themselves in opposition to to the rulers, oppositional structures and institutions can appear. Note: not must, but can. This might include new media, collectives and cooperatives of various sorts, semi-spontaneous liberation projects like People's Park in Berkeley, or organizing efforts like the Tenants Union, among others. I could probably think of more, but the important thing is that they form an ecology of opposition, reinforce each other, and are large enough to continue growing and bringing in more people, creating a culture of opposition that is self-sustaining. This is the autonomous zone.
Anyway, gotta run now. If you'd like to chime in, please do.
I think this is crucial and probably deserves its own
diary if not its own diary series.
I think I'm a bit less spontaneous, in that I also want to deliberately build some things, as well as creating the ecology and waiting for things to arise--like for instance, obviously the efforts at indie media in this country, at least the ones opposed to what one could call the hegemony, need to be networked, and resources funneled into the network as a whole; also many communities need to be built that are also networked (Occupy came tantalizingly close to this); issues of sustainability and resilience need to be addressed locally (but none of that can be done in the absence of communities). Also, we need to look at what could actually nourish our people--both our activists and the communities they serve--however counterintuitive this may seem, we need to have some fun and not be fucking Job's messenger all the time. TThe left must ditch this puritanical kick we've been on since as long as I can remember (I was a kid in the 70s, so missed out on the time where fun and ethics could shake hands). To put it another way, when we address the people, we shouldn't be merely the bearers of bad news asking them for stuff--money, time, sometimes it seems guilt-- but we should be approaching them offering stuff that they might need or want. Also, whatever we build should be built with an eye toward the ways in which we already KNOW our enemies attack: quick, synchronized mobilizations of military force, character assassination and misinformation in the press. IOW, we should not focus only on the negative, nor be paranoid, but neither should we be the folks who are perennially surprised that some jerk came around to destroy what we're doing.
Does any of this make sense? I am just brainstorming here.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
I can pretty much agree with all of that
If I have time I will try to tie it all together into something more readable, which someone will hopefully read (I have doubts about that....). Anyway, gotta run again.
I was at a great gathering in the Deep South,
where people were in some cases for the first time being with other progressives, i.e., there were some people who were newbies and had not actively participated in Sanders campaign events. I'm glad he steered clear of the Clinton endorsement issue, although he did mention the areas of Democratic Party platform influence and suggest in a couple of areas that he thought she would sincerely fight for the things she says she now believes in.
I feel like solidarity is being born in out of the way places. I'm actually more politically encouraged than I've ever been. We will nourish each other as revolutionaries going forward. A shy elderly woman asked if I'd help her with letters to the editor. A young man and woman were discussing their ideas for a long time with me after the meeting. It was great.
Deep South here also.
We mentioned at my watch party how great it is to be with like thinking people.
There was interesting discussion after the meeting
about how to do grassroots outreach in our area. It will involve in part building alliances with Black Lives Matter and other compatible movements. There was a lot of excitement about inclusivity, and being in the south that's particularly exciting and rational.
I think banner waving at events where the right has never before
been confronted in our area will be one tactic. Overall, I felt the energy for grassroots activism was quite high. A lot of the folks were from outside the south originally and felt a sense of missionary commitment to the disenfranchised and down and out, which is good.
It was soooo good to hear Bernie again.
rather than whoever it was who gave a speech endorsing Hillary & speaking at the convention.
I like that Larry Cohen, former pres of the communication workers of America is heading up Our Revolution's board.
I know a lot of people don't like weaver, but I didn't have a problem with him during the primaries. Other than Nina, I thought he was the best surrogate for Bernie. (But the money thing worries me)
As others have said, I picked up on the use of progressive in his speech. The progressive democrats of America had a Facebook post up this week about how they were kind of the people who pushed Bernie to run, so I wonder if there's an informal alliance there with our revolution.
I knew about the single payer initiative in Colorado, but I did not know about the drug price proposition (prop 61) in California.
Of course the TPP stuff was good to hear.
Whenever Bernie mentions how important it is to run for school board, I'm reminded of the approach the republicans took to take over states and congress.
My watch party ended up being 4 people + me. All people I hadn't met before at Bernie events. None of us millennials.
And "be that change" really grabbed my attention.
I hate that Shannon Jackson indicated that it will take them quite awhile to roll out all the candidates they support on the website. We need time for our donations, phonebanking & canvassing to add up.
Edited to add: I didn't write down the numbers Shannon had on the number of people watching, but it was a boatload of people.
Some people quit working for Our Revolution over Weaver
or at least that was part of it. Has any attempt been made by anyone here to contact the people who quit?
"The war on Gaza, backed by the West, is a demonstration that the West is willing to cross all lines. That it will discard any nuance of humanity. That it is willing to commit genocide" -- Moon of Alabama
Yeah, I know.
I haven't heard of anyone trying to contact Claire, etc. I certainly have no way of doing that.
yes, but Sanders mentioned his cooperation with Weaver for
over thirty years. So in a way he hinted that the dispute over Weaver is in so far not justified, because "he worked with him very closely for a very long time". So, I guess the dispute over Weaver isn't something that will make Sanders change his mind about him. I thought that shows who he is, his own man.In general I respect people who don't get impressed easily by outsider's disputes.
https://www.euronews.com/
Well OK.
Here it might be good to reflect upon the role Bernie Sanders played for most of the past thirty years -- that of the "amendment king" in a system existing largely to protect capitalism as it chews up and spits out planet Earth. Is that what we want from Our Revolution -- a few more "amendment kings"?
I presume the people who quit aren't just automatically going to disappear from the world or give up on politics. Perhaps there might be something to finding out what's happening with them?
"The war on Gaza, backed by the West, is a demonstration that the West is willing to cross all lines. That it will discard any nuance of humanity. That it is willing to commit genocide" -- Moon of Alabama
You know, the other day
You were pissing on the Green Party & stein, saying that they weren't good enough.
Now using amendments to get things done like Bernie has isn't good enough.
What the hell will it take to satisfy you? Because to me, a few more Bernie's in the House & senate sounds a hell of a lot better than more Schumers & McCaskills.
If you're interested in finding out what's up with ME...
you might also be interested to consider the reasons I gave in the diary I published for why we might consider "replacing the Green Party." My main assertion is that it's a legitimate concern to ask whether or not a very small party is ready to contend, or if it's merely that the gatekeepers of the Green Party will keep it small. Do you agree or disagree?
Here in this thread I'm asking whether or not the Bernie Sanders "political revolution" has to start with Jeff Weaver, or if there might also be a role in it for the people who quit what appears to be his organization. That's all I'm asking. I'm not asking for anyone to satisfy ME. Is that question really all that out-of-bounds?
Let's throw in another reality check here: as far as "getting things done" with climate change mitigation is concerned, everyone in DC deserves a big fat negative number. The problem is getting worse, and the government is one of the main culprits. So should we be satisfied with the existing pace of change?
"The war on Gaza, backed by the West, is a demonstration that the West is willing to cross all lines. That it will discard any nuance of humanity. That it is willing to commit genocide" -- Moon of Alabama
He wasn't "pissing on" the Green party.
He was critiquing them, but with the clear aim of getting people to go to the Green Party meetings and find out for themselves.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Thank you.
"The war on Gaza, backed by the West, is a demonstration that the West is willing to cross all lines. That it will discard any nuance of humanity. That it is willing to commit genocide" -- Moon of Alabama
You're welcome.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Last night sounded like Bernie's swan song with OurRev
Bernie basically turned over OurRev to Weaver.
Not much doubt in my mind why most of Bernie's top campaign team left?
Donnie The #ShitHole Douchebag. Fake Friend to the Working Class. Real Asshole.
I just looked their names up last night.
If anybody has a personal connection that would allow them to do it more effectively, now would be the time.
Otherwise, I'm willing to contact them, or at least try.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
I would want to ask them --
if they would be willing to work for another political organization, and, if so, what would that other political organization look like?
At any rate, thank you for finding them CSTS!
"The war on Gaza, backed by the West, is a demonstration that the West is willing to cross all lines. That it will discard any nuance of humanity. That it is willing to commit genocide" -- Moon of Alabama
Well, I only found two out of the eight.
Those who were quoted in the article--I didn't really do anything.
I hope that somebody else has a real connection--maybe Steven? He seems to know people within the Sanders campaign. I'll pm him.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Interesting, as in "What Is It?"
So what kind of organization is "Our Revolution"? What is it?
As Tak remarks, it's 100% directed at electoral politics.
As A. Budarin points out, it makes no effort to be a political party.
I definitely see a progression from Howard Dean to New Progressive Alliance to Occupy to Bernie and OR. With a little bit of Tea Party's methodology thrown in.
If I'm sitting within the Dem or Repub Party apparatus and looking at this thing, well, it appears like an alien that just landed. One that can reach 20 million people and move into myriad (progressive) issues as required, while also getting bodies into the streets.
Re: support for Canova.
From a comment at KfS:
Make of it what you will.
There are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know.
Except
That Bernie has expressed a desire to chair the Heath & human services committee (the name is something like that) if The dems regain the majority in the senate and if Patty Murray doesn't want it. (This is the committee ted Kennedy chaired. From it Bernie can push single payer & $15 minimum wage, among other things.)
I believe he mentions this in this interview.
http://www.wcax.com/story/32816457/sanders-reflects-on-campaign-ready-to...
I would be shocked if Schumer chose Bernie for
head of Budget.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Schumer is the most slimy conniving SoB of all the Dems
I'd expect him to bitch slap Bernie for daring to expose the Dems in the primaries.
Donnie The #ShitHole Douchebag. Fake Friend to the Working Class. Real Asshole.
Pages