From:   shaista husain <shaistahusain@gmail.com>
Sent time:   Thursday, October 06, 2011 9:23:24 PM
To:   september17@googlegroups.com
Subject:   Re: [september17discuss] Re: American Jobs Act
 

There was an article today in Nation Mag, by Allison Kilkenny ---who

quoted Ayman El Sayed from the nurse's union stating that he would

like to see a third party come out of this movement, outside the

democratic and republican two party rule.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/163823/unions-thousands-join-occupy-wall-streets-fight

(And there is so also much speculation that this movement might be a

left wing split from democratic party, similar to how the Tea Party is

a right wing split from Republicans--)

Just curious what folks think of this in terms of building momentum

---towards 99 demands plus 1001 nights to forever change the nature of

this political system---

 

 

 

 

 

On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 9:49 PM, <jemcgloin@verizon.net> wrote:

> +1

>

>

> On 10/06/11, Charles<chcreinhardt@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hey guys,

>

> Thanks for the responses. I understand that there are some serious

> issues with the AJA, including its formal endorsement of quasi-

> internship programs, when those should be illegal.

>

> I also understand the desire not to play or overplay our hand, and

> hold off.

>

> The comparisons to the German unemployment or "short work" system does

> not render it disreputable in my eyes. Germany is not perfect, but

> there is an enviable level of worker control in German factories and

> great labor protections there, and adapting or experimenting with

> ideas from Northern Europe would probably be a good idea at this

> point. I think greater collaboration between the state and business to

> boost employment would be a wonderful thing, if the business class in

> North America weren't so nihilistic.

>

> That said, I do understand that the business community in North

> America *is* nihilistic, and has utterly abandoned the entire concept

> of "home bias" that classical capitalists fantasized about .

>

> However, I would remind you all of Alain Badiou's famous thesis about

> the three ways a revolution fails. The first is by being physically or

> effectively destroyed or foiled. The second is by co-opting or being

> co-opted by the agenda of the enemy, rendering itself pointless. I

> understand that all of us are extremely concerned about these first

> two possibilities. The third, however, is more pernicious: in an

> effort to avoid the first two forms of failure, the revolution

> retreats into "ultra-leftism" and becomes obsessed with purity. That

> can lead to nihilism.

>

> By all means, let's not tie ourselves down too much. It's important to

> separate ourselves from the dominant narrative and build a counter-

> narrative. However, we need *some* leverage in the public debate if

> we're going to gain momentum. Personally, I think it would be great to

> say "We want this this and this, and we're not leaving. However, once

> we get those things, we're STILL not leaving because there's still so

> much to be done and we will continue forward."

>

> Thanks for listening.

>

> On Oct 6, 6:15 pm, jemcgl...@verizon.net wrote:

>> I am not against baby steps, but the fact that Obama's big selling poit on

>> the jobs act started with the fact that Republicans have supported most of

>> the provisions was a good clue of how effective it would be in creating

>> jobs.

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> On 10/06/11,Robert Christ<rjc53@cornell.edu>wrote:The moment we endorse

>> any politician, or any piece of legislation, the media will latch on to that

>> as our one demand.  At that point, they will have no need to cover us

>> specifically, whatsoever, and can spend their time discrediting our movement

>> by filming their talking heads "discussing" whatever or whomever we endorse.

>> No Demands.

>> No Endorsements.

>> Not Yet.On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 12:01 PM, David

>> DeGraw<David@ampedstatus.com>wrote:please, please do not endorse the Jobs

>> Act.  Highly problematic legislation. plus we cannot be seen as supporting

>> Obama or partisan in any way, we facture the whole 99% concept in my

>> opinion.

>> the Press con Obama's is giving right now is the best one I seen in years.

>>  Lots of OWS questions.  They asked why he never prosecuted WS execs.  Lots

>> of talk about the American people having every right to be pissed off.

>> CONGRATS EVERYONE!!!  WINNING! ;-)

>>

>>

>> On 10/6/2011 11:56 AM,bf0189@gmail.comwrote:It strikes me as a heavy

>> bastardization of German's unemployment system (and will be more bastardized

>> once it reaches Obama to sign and finalize)

>> Putting a small band-aid over a wound won't fix anything. We need real

>> reform.

>> On , Charles <chcreinhardt@gmail.com> wrote:

>> > Hey guys,

>> >

>> >

>> >

>> > A thought just occurred to me. I haven't heard much about this yet,

>> >

>> > but do you think that OWS might do itself a service by endorsing, at

>> >

>> > least as one of many goals, the passage of the American Jobs Act in

>> >

>> > its entirety, or even an expansion of its policies (and perhaps a

>> >

>> > reduction in the ratio of tax cuts composing it)? It has been accepted

>> >

>> > as a foregone conclusion by the entire American mainstream

>> >

>> > commentariat that Obama's jobs bill will be absolutely eviscerated or

>> >

>> > at least highly attenuated by the corrupt legislatures in this

>> >

>> > country.

>> >

>> >

>> >

>> > What if we tried to draw more attention to the legislative battle of

>> >

>> > the AJA as a pillar of our emerging program (in addition to legal and

>> >

>> > anti-trust action against the banks and tax reform, etc)? That way the

>> >

>> > movement can shed light on the very obstacles to the bill's passage or

>> >

>> > enhancement, which will serve to illuminate the architecture of

>> >

>> > corruption in our legislative process. That way, the bought off

>> >

>> > Democrats and Republicans can be named and shamed with the enhanced

>> >

>> > lens of this movement. Furthermore, the limited scope of the bill

>> >

>> > itself can serve as grounds for further criticism of the White House

>> >

>> > approach.

>> >

>> >

>> >

>> > I'm sure this has been suggested before, and I understand that there

>> >

>> > are caveats to our involvement in the political process but I want to

>> >

>> > know what the status of the current dialogue is about this course of

>> >

>> > action or line of thinking.

>> >

>> >

>> >

>> > Sincerely,

>> >

>> >

>> >

>> > Charles Reinhardt

>

< PREV INDEX SEARCH NEXT >