Is working with political parties the best way to get things done?

[kentuck]

Or is there a better way?

After all, we live in a new world. Never before in the history of our world have we had the equivalent technology to communicate with the world in a moment's notice.

The power, indeed, is with the people. They just don't know it yet.

The militaristic and fascistic Americans have taken over our country, mostly with the assistance of the present political Parties. They no longer operate in the interests of the people, it seems to me.

Where is the power to communicate? It is right at your fingertips, on the democraticunderground.

[patrice]

1. Either/Or propositions are an oversimplification of a profoundly complex reality that

I have found addressed best concretely, face-to-face, in shared WORK.

[kentuck]

2. I would agree it is complex...

How would you address it with shared WORK?

No doubt, we have a lot of work to do.

[patrice]

9. With issue-based, concrete, goal-oriented accountability.

I have never understood the inclination to exclude so many of those who actually do share, and could be productive on, concrete goals because they have the wrong label associated with their names.

One doesn't have to give up one's own principles in the process. It isn't necessary. In fact, one's own principles are purified, made stronger, in what can be a dialectical relationship with valid opposition. And, yes, I know validity is a rather high/rare standard, but, I for one, believe part of the problem all around, in all quarters, is how validating ourselves and others has been avoided in favor of ideological buzz. And, also yes, certain factions ARE more invalid than others, but the only means to address that invalidity is to get "the mote out of your own eye" before challenging that of others (because they CAN ALWAYS use that "mote" in your as a rhetorical excuse to reduce your perspective to 0 and, thus, distract everyone from the beam in their own).

ANY party that does not recognize the relevance of these dynamics not only to the opposition, but ALSO TO THEMSELVES, is pedaling bullshit, because, just as one of our main critiques of the opposition is that it habitually acts as though it were "the Whole", so must anyone and everyone else avoid such presumptions. Unless you're just going to engage in genocide, factions need to remember that "the other" NEVER EVER goes away, no matter how right you are, for the "holy contrary" is, indeed, an essential characteristic of that which we call "life" itself. Ergo, the question, always and in all-ways, HAS TO become HOW, in what manner/by what process, to deal with it. That can't be done by means of annihilation, because not only does that make the opposition stronger, it turns you into it. Dealing with it cannot be done without engagement, so I say "engage concretely on the empirical issues". There is no surrender inherent to engagement, hence, that COULD be our power.

[kentuck]

12. "engage concretely on the empirical issues"

such as?

[patrice]

13. For me professionally this had to do with the standards of quality care in elder care communities.

For others, it has to do with other types of standards in other venues.

In local organizing efforts, it could be accountable practices for phone calls, or letters, or internet activities, tracking and feeding back numbers of persons, or new persons, who show up for _____________ . . . .

There are thousands of ways to do this sort of thing, what you want is documentable evidence of what is being DONE.

Here on DU, it has to do with facts compared to other facts; bias recognized and compared to other biases; speculation recognized for what it is, not characterized as some window into The Future; . . . . other stuff.

[villager]

3. You say "parties," Kentuck, as if there are two opposing sensibilities to choose from

There are simply two versions of the corporate party: The cuckoo one, and the craven/apologetic one...

[kentuck]

4. I apologize.

Thanks for the correction.

[patrice]

14. You left out the third one, which characterizes the other "2" and then a 4th

term which is all/any/none of any of the other 3.

[whattheidonot]

5. not right now

No, the pressure has to ratchet up to make the politicians realize that their austerity plan is because of their mistakes. The people have been squeezed long enough. Failed policies for 25 years cannot be placed on the backs of the people. The people are catching on. You cannot keep knocking people down. That is where we are now.

[MannyGoldstein]

6. That's a great question

I suspect that we need parties if we have a representative Democracy, Or where a majority is needed to make a decision. But I will think about it.

[alc]

7. not the major parties unless you're in the middle

They both know they have X% of the vote guaranteed. Since they have X% of the vote locked up (30-40%?), they need enough of the middle to get over 50%. So they will listen to the middle and work with them. All the parties want is more power - another Democrat congressman is good even if he/she is further right than many Republicans. Working with their base is only going to loose some potential middle, and won't improve their base so why do it. Working with the party is fine, but if you want them to work with you, you need to remove yourself from the guaranteed X%.

[Dappleganger]

8. Compromising with the corporatists got us where?

Right here.

[patrice]

11. Just because you cannot/do not conceptualize something that is not compromise, does not mean

that there is no such thing.

It is abdication of the field that results in them being able to do pretty much whatever they want, more what they want than they would be capable of doing were valid engagement maintained without the fear of being characterized as "compromise".

[mmonk]

10. Some don't think so.

"However may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.

George Washington



If I could go to heaven, except with a political party, I would rather not go there at all.'

Thomas Jefferson