"Movement for a People's Party"

[pecksniff]

I never before heard of this until I chanced across this YouTube video about "America's Two-Party Corporate Duopoly," which makes some good points.

Movement for a People's Party is apparently an attempt to start a third party, a "Populist Progressive" party, to the left of the Dems.

It's hard for me to feel optimistic about this. I once was active, in a very marginal way, in the New Party, a project with similar politics, which no longer exists. Its electoral strategy was to rely on fusion -- one candidate running as the nominee of more than one party -- which most states' laws do not allow.

The problem is that any third-party project runs up against not only the entrenched power of the Republicrats and their consequent control over ballot-access laws, but an electoral system, the first-past-the-post single-member-district system, that tends naturally to produce a two-party system. Even those third parties that actually succeed in establishing a visible national presence, such as the Libertarians and the Greens, never seem to get into office to any extent that makes a difference.

In light of all that, is there any hope for this movement?

 

[Rightguide]

Sorry, outright Communism is non-starter when it tells the truth about its goals and policies. Notwithstanding your great love for it.

 

[pecksniff]

Sorry, outright Communism is non-starter when it tells the truth about its goals and policies. Notwithstanding your great love for it.

This left-progressive, social-democratic movement is no more Communist than the New Party was -- and, no, it wasn't. Neither is the DSA or the Socialist Party USA, for that matter. And certainly not the Democrats. We would have a better society if the corporate-owned Dems were something like that, or at least something like they were in FDR's day.

There really are differences between various currents on the left, and they really do matter.

Like most of the RW, you really need to stop looking at the whole left side of the spectrum through the wrong end of a telescope.

 

[jaF0]

I believe China has a people's party. OP should move there and sniff their peckers.

 

[pecksniff]

I believe China has a people's party.

It is a Communist party and calls itself that. Not the same thing at all.

 

[Rightguide]

This left-progressive, social-democratic movement is no more Communist than the New Party was -- and, no, it wasn't. Neither is the DSA or the Socialist Party USA, for that matter. And certainly not the Democrats. We would have a better society if the corporate-owned Dems were something like that.

There really are differences between various currents on the left, and they really do matter.

Like most of the RW, you really need to stop looking at the whole left side of the spectrum through the wrong end of a telescope.

You need to stop trying to gaslight us about your Marxism or the intent of the communism they are in love with, or their plans for America if allowed.

 

[pecksniff]

You need to stop trying to gaslight us about your Marxism or the intent of the communism they are in love with, or their plans for America if allowed.

I am no more a Marxist than you are -- I've often made very clear what I see as wrong with it. But socialism =/= Marxism.

And you are in no position to charge anybody with gaslighting.

 

[pecksniff]

In any case, this thread is really about the prospects of a third-party movement in the present American context. For "People's," substitute "Libertarian" or "Green" or whatever you prefer -- the structural obstacles remain the same.

 

[jaF0]

OP's 'movements' all over the board are more than annoying.

 

[WillJ8787]

I never before heard of this until I chanced across this YouTube video about "America's Two-Party Corporate Duopoly," which makes some good points.

Movement for a People's Party is apparently an attempt to start a third party, a "Populist Progressive" party, to the left of the Dems.

It's hard for me to feel optimistic about this. I once was active, in a very marginal way, in the New Party, a project with similar politics, which no longer exists. Its electoral strategy was to rely on fusion -- one candidate running as the nominee of more than one party -- which most states' laws do not allow.

The problem is that any third-party project runs up against not only the entrenched power of the Republicrats and their consequent control over ballot-access laws, but an electoral system, the first-past-the-post single-member-district system, that tends naturally to produce a two-party system. Even those third parties that actually succeed in establishing a visible national presence, such as the Libertarians and the Greens, never seem to get into office to any extent that makes a difference.

In light of all that, is there any hope for this movement?

The US has a long history.of third party movements. The election of 186 0 was a good example of.hiw.far back they have been a part of our.process.

https://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war/election-of-1860

Many of the early third party movements where faced with threat of and actual violence against them. Burr and Hamilton in the early 1800's and the Know Nothing Party to cite a few examples.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/violence-has-long-been-a-feature-of-american-elections/


We have had quite a few third party runs in recent history, Ross Perot being a great example and of.some.consequence as the Bushes and the Republicans believe Perot tipped the balance in favor of Dems. Democrats also had their third party foils....Nader and the Green Party come to mind.

And you are right in the sense that the American System is a firmly entrenched two party political system. It is not just the Republicans who resist third party.movements, Dems do it equally as well and with as much force and venom as the Republicans. Bernie Sanders created a real third party grass roots movement and the Democratic machine roasted him and his followers choosing a widely unpopular candidate Hillary Clinton and the consequences of this political exercise of power(not democracy) was a loss to a despotic nationalist populist Donald Trump.

It do believe the Democratic machine still does not understand the hurt it caused to the moderate Democratic party and the left, nor does it care so long as it's power remains.

How this ties into the question though....third parties are not viable under this two party, choose Coke or Pepsi, kind of a system. Where the Repubs have been more clever is to allow for third parties to infect their rank and file membership, allowing these movements to spread within like a virus. Much like Agent Smith replicates itself within the structure of the Matrix (I'm not kidding when using this metaphore).

Republicans have had more time and big losses to help them digest the unpalatability of Trump, choosing winning over doctrine and platform. That is the lesson they learned after Obama whipped their asses...Tea Party movements and their legacies robbed them of votes so why not just allow for why appear to be "a take over of the party". Moscow Mitch's own statement exemplify this best..." I don't like to lose."

The Dems have a long hard learning curve ahead regarding third parties. I am betting on Repubs winning the next election mostly because the Democratic left still exists and is growing and will take votes away from a totally inflexible Democratic machine that wants control of resources and power and since they are unable to let go of doctrine and platform, they will lose votes and lose elections.

 

[pecksniff]

We have had quite a few third party runs in recent history, Ross Perot being a great example . . .

That was rather a special case: The Reform Party was a campaign vehicle for Perot, and he persistently quashed any efforts to turn it into something else, e.g., by nominating candidates for offices other than the presidency. In 2000 the party tried contesting an election without Perot and it all fell apart, partly for lack of having had any consistent ideology to begin with, to the point where Pat Buchanan and John Hagelin could appear equally plausible "Reform" candidates. Even Trump was briefly a contender for the Reform nomination that year.

 

[WillJ8787]

That was rather a special case: The Reform Party was a campaign vehicle for Perot, and he persistently quashed any efforts to turn it into something else, e.g., by nominating candidates for offices other than the presidency. In 2000 the party tried contesting an election without Perot and it all fell apart, partly for lack of having had any consistent ideology to begin with, to the point where Pat Buchanan and John Hagelin could appear equally plausible "Reform" candidates.

Correct, that is why I say The Bushes and some Republicans...it is highly debatable.

 

[bellisarius]

Do it!!!! Hell, I'll even send them some money.

 

[pecksniff]

Do it!!!! Hell, I'll even send them some money.

Go here.

 

[jaF0]

^^ I got a place for you to go.

 

[pecksniff]

Hey! Canada had one of those. The Reform Party led by Preston Manning, a right wing populist party.

Stephen Harper wasn't enough?!

 

[bellisarius]

Go here.

Yup, just what the name implies.

 

[pecksniff]

Yup, just what the name implies.

Yes, it is a people's party, and more of one than either of the big two.

 

[bellisarius]

Yes, it is a people's party, and more of one than either of the big two.

It is a Communist Party to it's very core. There is no doubt in my mind that some digging into their financials is going to reveal the hand of the CCP.

I don't understand why people keep falling for these lines of horseshit.

 

[Cubantripod]

Don't we call that party "The Squad?" Either way, you're not getting it. I would love for the libertarian party to have more visibility. The Duopoly has made difficult for third parties to get any attention and any real footing. The media doesn't help by ignoring any third parties.

 

[Rightguide]

It is a Communist party and calls itself that. Not the same thing at all.

China calls itself the People's Republic of China.

 

[pecksniff]

It is a Communist Party to it's very core. There is no doubt in my mind that some digging into their financials is going to reveal the hand of the CCP.

The CCP has no interest in turning America Communist.

 

[Rightguide]

Go here.

"Dr. Cornel West, Nina Turner, Marianne Williamson, Jimmy Dore, Danny Glover, Mike Gravel, Ryan Knight."

I knew if I snooped around that site I'd find Commies and their sympathizers.

 

[Rightguide]

The CCP has no interest in turning America Communist.

Oh please. Why do you think they've set Confucius Institutes in every major university in America to spread their communist propaganda? It's the Long Game you're too naïve to notice.

 

[pecksniff]

Oh please. Why do you think they've set Confucius Institutes in every major university in America to spread their communist propaganda? It's the Long Game you're too naïve to notice.

From what I can see here, those do not involve teaching any Marxism or Maoism at all. The worst thing they're ever accused of is whitewashing the PRC's human-rights record, which is to be expected and has nothing to do with teaching Communism.