Register Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 3 of 7      Prev   1   2   3   4   5   6   Next   »
No Difference

Registered:
Posts: 155
Reply with quote  #31 
So, ed2291, you recommend the "hail Mary" pass for JP strategy?   And if so, will you have enough players on the field?
__________________
Cooperation, coordination, and clarity are essential to creating a political party based on equality. Cliches and equivocations will not move this or any other party forward.
ed2291

Registered:
Posts: 11
Reply with quote  #32 
Quote:
So, ed2291, you recommend the "hail Mary" pass for JP strategy?   And if so, will you have enough players on the field?


I really don't understand your "Hail Mary" reference. Everything else you said makes good sense. What I was referring to was the left's famous "circular firing squad."  I am very tired of the "This must only be done in a certain way in a certain order."  It is used as an excuse to do nothing because every effort is imperfect. Personally, I like volunteering for the New Progressive Alliance at  
http://newprogs.org/
  You may like working for the Justice Party or something else. Right now we are on an unsustainable path and must start to cooperate and do something. That was the thrust of what I was trying to say.
No Difference

Registered:
Posts: 155
Reply with quote  #33 
The Left has a famous "circular firing squad."  To whom are you referring? 

This must only be done in a certain way in a certain order.  Who says?

Every effort is imperfect.  Which efforts?

We must start to cooperate.   Who has not been cooperating?

That's all I am asking.  Who are these people you are talking about?  It sounds to me that you strongly feel they are all wrong, doing things the wrong way, hesitatingly, uncooperatively.  But WHO are they?

I'd like to know who you think we should be avoiding.  They sound like very bothersome people.

__________________
Cooperation, coordination, and clarity are essential to creating a political party based on equality. Cliches and equivocations will not move this or any other party forward.
ed2291

Registered:
Posts: 11
Reply with quote  #34 
I am not trying to start an argument and view the Justice Party as positive. Check MyFDL or Huffington Post if you want samples of negative people that keep us from progressing. Those who think Obama has an excellent record should probably be supporting the democrats instead of the Justice Party. If you see nothing, conclude I am wrong and go on from there. I am trying to reflect the sentiments of Alan Maki and Anthony Noel who I have worked with and have faith in.
No Difference

Registered:
Posts: 155
Reply with quote  #35 
Sorry, I am just trying to identify what you think are the mistakes the Left makes.  Then we can avoid them.

I agree that there are people who keep us from progressing.  But I wonder if people in other Left parties may see us as one more impediment to Left unity.  I'm playing Devils Advocate here a bit hoping that we can see ourselves better.

No one here should be desiring to support Dems or any of their front groups.  But frankly, I should point out that Huffington turned out to be a big sell out, and Firedog Lake has a variety of thinkings there too.

I'd like to see some well-thought out strategy before going gung-ho (my Hail Mary remark) with my time, money, and passion.

__________________
Cooperation, coordination, and clarity are essential to creating a political party based on equality. Cliches and equivocations will not move this or any other party forward.
ed2291

Registered:
Posts: 11
Reply with quote  #36 
Quote:
I'd like to see some well-thought out strategy before going gung-ho (my Hail Mary remark) with my time, money, and passion.


Sounds reasonable to me. Now I understand! Thanks for clarifying.

I am coordinating with Green Party candidates and reaching out to other organizations for the New Progressive Alliance right now. I would like to endorse some Justice Party candidates at levels other than President between now and 2016. I have worked with and admire Alan Maki in the past and he has a high opinion of the Justice Party.
Ben Eastwood

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 41
Reply with quote  #37 

  Until we remove the corporate control from the government, any sort of 'full employment' system will be subverted by corporate interests.  I do believe that the US government needs to enact some ccc type programs to help get people working, and to rebuild the infrastructure, however, an unfettered federal full employment mandate on its own will end up with companies laying off people, and then re-jobbing them at the same job, but for less money, and on the taxpayer dime.  Look at how so called workfare programs have turned out, and prison sweatshops.

  The idea of "re-educating" or "re-training" conservatives because they are "wrong" is exactly the sort of divisive type of ideal that has no place in a free society.  It harkens back to the BIA schools, where native kids were forced to speak english and attend Christian church because "paganism' was wrong...  We may disagree wit their ideals, but to presume that we are 'right' and they are 'wrong' is absurd...  Wrong how?  Morally wrong?  If so, who is the arbiter of morality? 

  There are many common causes that we can work with Conservatives on, like foreign war and reducing the military budget.  We will not be able to make any meaningful progress without the funds, and as long as an obscene amount of our economy is tied up in the military we won't have the funds to do it.  Many Conservatives (as opposed to neo-cons, which includes essentially the entire 2party) have been calling for drastic military cuts, and pulling out of our foreign entanglements.  If we start from the fallacy that we have the moral high ground, or are superior then there will be no way to even try to work with them.  

 


__________________
We came, we saw, we gathered signatures, we sued, we gathered signatures, we got Rocky on the Ballot in Vermont. That was the easy part, now we have to get this Justice Party Started!
No Difference

Registered:
Posts: 155
Reply with quote  #38 
Quote:
The idea of "re-educating" or "re-training" conservatives because they are "wrong" is exactly the sort of divisive type of ideal that has no place in a free society.  It harkens back to the BIA schools, where native kids were forced to speak english and attend Christian church because "paganism' was wrong...  We may disagree wit their ideals, but to presume that we are 'right' and they are 'wrong' is absurd...  Wrong how?  Morally wrong?  If so, who is the arbiter of morality?


The sort of retraining we are talking about for conservatives (if anyone would even be serious) is not of the same type as the BIA schools.  You can't equate correction of a thinking based on inequality with that of an albeitly prejudiced and brainswashing education system.  But we will just set the latter aside, because I think everyone here agrees the whole ordeal of Native Americans has been an ugly one, along with blacks and nearly every other group pulled in to work for slave wages for our system.  Those and other mistakes of the past certainly need attention and they may be getting some soon (see "Idle no more").

But the type of flagrant error in rightwing thinking is that for whatever arbitrary and racist/prejudiced reason, somehow poor people deserve to be trapped into wage slavery for ever without any guarantee of getting out of the ever-increasing amount of debt they incur as a penalty for living on this planet.  Yes it is a moral reason; but moreover, it is an ethical reason.  Having an elite few dictating the survival or suffering of the rest of the population can not be argued to be fair or a democratic notion.

I know you are trying to find a moral or ethical equivalent to make your point, but I don't see that there is one.  The ideology and "tradition" of the Right is not some sort of analog for the struggle that goes on for centuries on the Left as regular people who are enslaved to the system by wages or chattel claims live hand-to-mouth trying to work themselves out of the unthinkable yet real system of oppression created by the former.

Their system has existed for over 5 centuries and has not slowed down any.  That is the battlefield, and these are the enemies of the people.  I think it is best to accept this problem as it is rather than try to play semantic games by sliding the left-right scale around and pretending that one end of the spectrum is just as moral and good as the other.   That just isn't so.  Otherwise, why would we be here constructing a political party?

__________________
Cooperation, coordination, and clarity are essential to creating a political party based on equality. Cliches and equivocations will not move this or any other party forward.
Blyden

Registered:
Posts: 8
Reply with quote  #39 

That multiple people in party leadership consider full employment a requisite issue for the Justice Party strikes me as an Achilles heel to the organization. There are several reasons why I think this cannot ultimately be one of the Justice Party’s official goals:

 

1) First of all, how will you measure success?  How will you know when you have achieved full employment?  Unless – and really, even if --  the unemployment rate got to 0%, you couldn’t be sure that every person who wanted a job actually had a job. And if the rate remains above 0% how will you know that all of that is frictional or voluntary?  Most economists suggest that “full employment” would be somewhat above 0%, but how will you know at just what level you’ve achieved the goal? Insofar as other things may be equal, not being able to know when a goal has been achieved is a reason to avoid such a goal.

 

2) I don’t believe that full employment is POSSIBLE in the real world insofar as you have some people who seek unemployment status for its own sake. Are you going to force those people to take a job?  And I don’t believe people, or a party, are wise to take on goals that are impossible.

 

3) What is the reason that you want full employment? Employment in itself doesn’t seem like something people would desire in itself: you just like people being busy at work?  I doubt it.  Isn’t the reason tied to the supposition that employment is THE means to having an income for most people in our society? So then the real goal here is NOT full employment, but rather everyone having the wherewithal to provide themselves with a living income. That being so, why not put THAT, your actual goal, as the goal, and leave the means aside. That way if some other means is found to achieve the true goal, it wouldn’t matter whether full employment were achieved or not. This seems particularly important when you realize that the correlation between jobs and income is a characteristic of a particular mode of production and time period, that in which the vast majority of people are wage or salary workers. If we went back even 150 years ago that would have been true for a small portion of our population, and there is a good likelihood that at some point in our future it will again not make much sense. Why not plan for that economic future and focus on people having what they need to live, e.g. rather than insist on doing it through (wage) employment?

 

 

And while I’m at it, these last two points also hold for the general goal of “equality”:

 

2)  You can (hopefully) get equality of human rights, civil rights & liberties, and equality under the law. That alone is a very substantial and worthy goal. But I don’t believe it is possible for there ever to be full equality with regards to things such as social statuses, economics, life chances, etc. There is just too much variability in people’s lives and so much of that variability is valued by the society. You can’t control it, even if you wanted to. Every society known to mankind through history has had some amount and some forms of inequality. To think that we are going to create the first society that is an exception, against a core understanding of what inequality even is, is a fool’s errand.

 

3) Why are we concerned about inequality? In itself, who would care about inequality per se except some very petty person that looks over and says, oh, his share of the cookie is two crumbs greater than mine?!  We care because of the consequences, we care when the inequality is structural or systematic rather than idiosyncratic, and especially we care about inequality whenever and wherever that inequality is unjust. That is, concern about inequality is always, or nearly always, concern about injustice. The inequalities we want to eliminate are those which we see as being unjust. So instead of calling for equality -- which will make every thoughtful, rational person shake their head or laugh at the absurdity of our party – why don’t instead we call for justice, i.e. the elimination of unjust inequalities?  Which is, potentially, an achievable goal.

 

 

We have to avoid being so committed to particular mechanisms for achieving goals that we are blind to the possibility of achieving them in other ways, and thoughtful enough to see when a particular mechanism may not be possible. This is part of the reason why, IMO, it would be desirable to begin with the values, cascade to the goals that come from those values, and THEN figure out what policies might be able to achieve the goals, with an open mind and awareness that there is often, as they say, more than one way to skin a cat.  It doesn’t make  logical sense to be committed to particular policies, then define your goals based on your policy commitments, and then demand values that fit those goals.

 

Blyden

Blyden

Registered:
Posts: 8
Reply with quote  #40 

"In real life, today, we are not dealing with a society of more than a century ago or the society based on your sci-fi delusions a few centuries into the future; if your predictions of the future come true."

Alan, do you fail to see that the point of mentioning the historical specificity of the assumptions on which your policy is predicated is not to suggest that we are in the past or the future, but to show that the fundamental assumption on which your theory is based is historically dependent, and thus cannot be generally true? Policy based on flawed theory will fail.  


"I'm not sure what present life expectancy is in this country right now; suffice it to say most of us will not live long enough for your fairy-tale imagination to take hold."

That "fairy-tale" future that I imagine is something that we are apparently already underway towards. It is probably true that most or all those of us alive today will likely be dead before the transition completes, if it even does go that way. But we should be building a party based on timeless values.


"We have tens of millions of unemployed, under-employed and poverty-waged people in our country right here and now who need, and are entitled to, living wage jobs."

Why? If people are underemployed, but make a decent living, is that a social problem that the government must fix?  If they are unemployed because they want to be unemployed, must the government force them to work?  If they are employed but poverty-waged, or poor as a result of undesired unemployment, that IS a problem that we have collective responsibility to fix, but it doesn't seem that putting these people to work is the ONLY possible solution. The reason its a problem isn't the lack of work, per se, but rather the poverty, isn't it? 

"Making the United States government responsible for full employment is *all about* [emphais added] eliminating poverty."

Precisely. So, if you eliminated poverty by other means, you wouldn't need full employment. Which is very convenient given the difficulties with the concept of full employment.

"It is also about [sic] upholding the most basic and fundamental human right to a job"

For millenia people got by without jobs, and they are likely going to have to do it again in the future. The idea that there is a "human right" to a job is laughable. The idea that it is the most basic and fundamental of human rights is even more preposterous. More important than life itself?  More important than liberty? More important than freedom of thought and conscience?  Get real!


"You are in a very small minority in this country if you think the United States government shouldn't be made responsible for assuring full employment."

I highly doubt that. I don't have any statistics -- if you do, please share them -- but I'd bet a nice dinner that the majority of Americans don't believe that the government should be responsible for assuring full employment. And if they did, it would be evidence of just how irrational people can be that they would think the government would be responsible for achieving something that probably isn't even possible.

You are stuck, perhaps hopelessly so, on this belief that full employment can be obtained and that it is the ONLY possible way to achieve the desired changes in society. So much so, apparently, that the means to the goal has become the goal itself for you. You won't consider the possibility of achieving the original goal via other means.

And, just to be totally clear, lest anyone misunderstand what I've written, I do believe that insofar as there are people who don't have access to means of having a 'living wage' and who desire to have such access -- there are a few people who choose poverty -- that it is a social problem that we should be addressing, and that programs to try to get jobs for people who want them are a good thing, I just don't believe (1) that full employment is likely to ever be attained, or (2) that jobs are a goal in their own right as opposed to a means toward a decent living, and I do believe (3) that there are other ways of achieving the goal of everyone having access to a decent living, i.e. elimination of poverty.

No Difference

Registered:
Posts: 155
Reply with quote  #41 
(Tries this one more time to see if anyone will consider the possibility...)

What about the idea of reducing the work week and giving people a basic income so they can purchase the production of an increasingly automated manufacturing system?   This way, there will be more jobs, more free time, and -- omg -- cash to actually buy the stuff the economy makes?

This approach seems to be along the lines of Blyden's suggestion of seeking a more "timeless" solution, addresses the full-employment issue that Alan brings up, and start to address some of the corporate control of politics and government that Ben points out (like Alan points out, the greatest wage weapon industry has is unemployment).

__________________
Cooperation, coordination, and clarity are essential to creating a political party based on equality. Cliches and equivocations will not move this or any other party forward.
ed2291

Registered:
Posts: 11
Reply with quote  #42 
As Ben said, "There are many common causes that we can work with Conservatives on, like foreign war and reducing the military budget." Also accurate is the difference between conservatives (some agreement possible) and neocons ( no agreement advised).

Agreeing with conservatives should not be a goal. I am a little worried that Rocky's emphasis on a balanced budget gives some undeserved credibility to discredited austerity measures that both the democrats and republicans seem to love so much.

Some areas of agreement follow.
  • No "hocus-pocus" or "voodoo" economics.
  • No wars without exit plans and specific objectives.
  • No extended wars ever.
  • Following the constitution even when it is unpopular.
  • preserve the rights of unions but don't give automatic power to them. (because they are corrupt and for the most part mindlessly support democrats at the expense of their own workers)
  • Encourage third parties. The Green Party and Constitution Party of Tennessee and Georgia recently cooperated to sue for more ballot access. More ballot access for all is a good thing and takes power away from the democraqtic/republican Uniparty. We have to have enough confidence that we will win the battle of ideas. I know the Green Party tries to co-opt other third parties and that is not a good long term idea.
barefootalways

Registered:
Posts: 139
Reply with quote  #43 
  Blyden, you said " The idea that there is a "human right" to a job is laughable. The idea that it is the most basic and fundamental of human rights is even more preposterous. More important than life itself?  More important than liberty? More important than freedom of thought and conscience?  Get real! Are you nuts!!! yes a job is as important if not the most important. Duh!!! you can't live without a job and really can't support yourself especially in cities like NYC. I was unemployed in NYC Thank God I lived at home with my mom!!!  WOW!!! what heartless people we have in JP. It is a basic human right like breathing is. Are you even coherent to what is going on in society? Everyone deserves and needs a job. I don't buy what you said about people not wanting to work and we can't force people to. That may be so but they will get off their but when they know they can't eat. I never in my life even met someone who does not want to work. Work is freedom because they earn their own money whereas not being on the system. If we use what Alan has been talking about it could work. Even No Diff has valid points. If we provide a living wage for all people and a stable hourly wage we can get people off poverty. Poverty is the issue not working. People are still working but earning a wage that is bad and keeping them in poverty. Yes, It is the governments position to keep a healthy working environment. All countries have this responsibility that their citizens are working.

 BTW, Blyden try to choose words wisely. To say people don't want to work and people want to people want to be poor is so outrageous. No one wants to be poor. I don't know anyone who wakes up and says gee I want to live in a shack with no running water. SICK!!!!! That is a bit harsh. They might be a small majority but you can't be serious to say so many in America don't want to work. Keep listening to the republican led FOX brainwashing people. I have had enough of  phoney's on this board who are really right wing nuts.

WE ARE NOT A REPUBLICAN PARTY. Rocky will not support these crazy schemes.

  I truly believe this board is getting worse and worse. So many people  on this board are to right wing. This is not what Rocky is about.  I will not read or even deal with stupidity when someone says someone wants to be poor.  This reminds me of the time some dumb lady on the subway said to me that people who are homeless choose to be or want to be. I jumped up and went off. She had to be a metal case who should not be out in society. Of course she had diamonds on and from the upper west side of NYC. She was a heartless wealthy snob who does not care about anything but herself. Wow so many AMERICANS are ignorant of life in general. I work so hard to help end hunger and homelessness. I have talked with the homeless and no one wants to live that way. There might be a few who are off kilter and sick and may feel that way because that is the only way they knew but that is an incredibly low amount of people. I can't help them all it is impossible. I am only one person. if I can help as many as I can then yes I will have done my part for society.






No Difference

Registered:
Posts: 155
Reply with quote  #44 
I agree let's keep these threads pure.  Convolving various issues does not help keep these discussions focused.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Barefoot
WE ARE NOT A REPUBLICAN PARTY. Rocky will not support these crazy schemes.


What do you mean by calling out only the Republican Party -- aren't the Democrats running the WH and the Senate currently?

I do agree that the JP has attracted a fair share of RW's.  And I think this is the result of the insistence, by some, that this party should somehow be a left-right-coalition-cum-political-party.  That notion NEVER made sense to me from the beginning (see my posts from early in 2012).

With regards to Rocky:  While I have no bones to pick with the man, really, I am very disdainful of regarding him or anyone else as some sort of iconic figure representing the beliefs of the party.  I think the stated beliefs of the party should be the beliefs of the party, and anyone who agrees with the beliefs of the party are welcome to join us to advance those beliefs.  In this context, Rocky Anderson is just one of those people, and an important one.  Just not the ONLY one.   And, remember, if the JP is to be a party of equality, we cannot dismiss or sideline other members' inputs.

Thanks for listening.

__________________
Cooperation, coordination, and clarity are essential to creating a political party based on equality. Cliches and equivocations will not move this or any other party forward.
No Difference

Registered:
Posts: 155
Reply with quote  #45 
Back to the question of full employment now.

I think I have to differ on the basis for the thrust here.  With all due respect to Alan, who has been a leader in advancing (or trying to against insufferable odds) the issues of labor and workers, I want to advance a different basis.  You can tear it apart if you like, but I would like to test it out.

The basis is that it is not a job or employment that a human is entitled to, but rather a source of income that a human is entitled to.   In turn, that is because it is wrong to force a human being -- and their family -- to suffer from hunger, homelessness, or difficulty in access to education and health care.

I'm not sure I like the concept that people have to perform some kind of labor or service in order to obtain the means by which to purchase essential needs of life.  Therefore, I propose that there be a national income that covers the basic expenses of life; in very practical economic terms, this will enable the public to consume what the economy produces, which is also important to avoid unnecessary warehousing and waste related to unconsumed production.

People should be free to take up employment if they choose, and they should be remitted a fair wage for their efforts.  However, their basic national income is guaranteed no matter what other income they may incur.  People would be free to pursue additional education, volunteer for public service of any kind, spend time reading about history, working on art projects, or spending more time with children and getting involved in the education system.

It simply doesn't make sense to me to continue to support an ancient, repugnant notion of puritan work ethic that was fashioned into existence by the need for lots of cheap manual labor to enrich the wealth of the middle and upper classes.  It was never a humane idea, and I feel that humanity has tolerated this for too long.

__________________
Cooperation, coordination, and clarity are essential to creating a political party based on equality. Cliches and equivocations will not move this or any other party forward.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:


Create your own forum with Website Toolbox!