I've been liaising with Lisa & Bill since Lisa offered to help the Occupy Auckland movement by providing nightly speakers for an early-evening 15 minute talk. Seemed a good way for older folk to provide guidance. Unfortunately the movement remains bogged down in negativity due to the prevailing social pathology in their group culture, so I've decided to pull out.
Essentially oppositionist, the movement has adopted the collective stance of adolescent rejection of the parental authority of the state (the state being controlled by the capitalists, regardless of whether a left or right govt is in control). This is understandable. Protest movements are the traditional form of political expression of the angry people when elections don't solve the problem.
I believe the OWS premise is flawed: protests don't solve the problem either. What they should be doing is forming an alternative political movement to offer the people a positive alternative to the status quo. That means formulating an alternative, articulating it, advocating it. Instead, they remain locked in grievance mode. A week ago they decided to produce a list of grievances to present to the media, yet this job remains undone.
Various suggested points have been provided by individuals in the movement to the person who they selected to formulate the list. I have seen some of them notified to the Occupy online site. They can be interpreted as a list of complaints but they really point to problems. The next step, which the movement must take if it is to be effective, is to identify the solutions. Instead, Occupy Auckland follows OWS in the traditional stance of the protest movement. After 40 years of this syndrome failing to deliver the desired results, my attitude is enough of this shit. Get over it! Act like adults instead of adolescents.
At least the Greens have the right approach, as does Lisa with her Awareness Party; they're both advocating a positive alternative. I've explained in my earlier essay here that I discontinued all involvement with the Greens in mid '95. [I may make the reasons public.] I've been staunch ever since in avoiding all party members and my aversion has kept me from checking out their website lest it make me angry and disgusted. Don't like being that negative, but my conscience requires me to tell the truth. I understand that negative feedback is an essential healthy part of community, but liberal socialists can't handle reality at all and would find my critique too severe. I'm not inclined to hurt people, so better to cut all ties.
However last night I finally went to look at the Green Party site: it's nice & user friendly in ambience but content seemed banal.
I know I can feel good about the Greens if they retain support for Tibet & decriminalising cannabis. When I took over as organiser of the Greens justice and international relations policy working groups in '91 I discovered to my disgust that the justice policy didn't include decriminalising cannabis & the international relations policy didn't include freedom for Tibet. So I put both in immediately!! I then drove the policy consensus process through regional adoption to national adoption. I've been grateful for Nandor Tanzcos & Russel Norman leading both causes in the public arena in the intervening years.
However, a quick check of the website failed to find a policy statement in favour of either issue. That's liberal socialists for you - if it's an issue of natural justice, integrity and authenticity they will run & hide every time.
Essentially oppositionist, the movement has adopted the collective stance of adolescent rejection of the parental authority of the state (the state being controlled by the capitalists, regardless of whether a left or right govt is in control). This is understandable. Protest movements are the traditional form of political expression of the angry people when elections don't solve the problem.
I believe the OWS premise is flawed: protests don't solve the problem either. What they should be doing is forming an alternative political movement to offer the people a positive alternative to the status quo. That means formulating an alternative, articulating it, advocating it. Instead, they remain locked in grievance mode. A week ago they decided to produce a list of grievances to present to the media, yet this job remains undone.
Various suggested points have been provided by individuals in the movement to the person who they selected to formulate the list. I have seen some of them notified to the Occupy online site. They can be interpreted as a list of complaints but they really point to problems. The next step, which the movement must take if it is to be effective, is to identify the solutions. Instead, Occupy Auckland follows OWS in the traditional stance of the protest movement. After 40 years of this syndrome failing to deliver the desired results, my attitude is enough of this shit. Get over it! Act like adults instead of adolescents.
At least the Greens have the right approach, as does Lisa with her Awareness Party; they're both advocating a positive alternative. I've explained in my earlier essay here that I discontinued all involvement with the Greens in mid '95. [I may make the reasons public.] I've been staunch ever since in avoiding all party members and my aversion has kept me from checking out their website lest it make me angry and disgusted. Don't like being that negative, but my conscience requires me to tell the truth. I understand that negative feedback is an essential healthy part of community, but liberal socialists can't handle reality at all and would find my critique too severe. I'm not inclined to hurt people, so better to cut all ties.
However last night I finally went to look at the Green Party site: it's nice & user friendly in ambience but content seemed banal.
I know I can feel good about the Greens if they retain support for Tibet & decriminalising cannabis. When I took over as organiser of the Greens justice and international relations policy working groups in '91 I discovered to my disgust that the justice policy didn't include decriminalising cannabis & the international relations policy didn't include freedom for Tibet. So I put both in immediately!! I then drove the policy consensus process through regional adoption to national adoption. I've been grateful for Nandor Tanzcos & Russel Norman leading both causes in the public arena in the intervening years.
However, a quick check of the website failed to find a policy statement in favour of either issue. That's liberal socialists for you - if it's an issue of natural justice, integrity and authenticity they will run & hide every time.
RSS Feed