Critical positioning just isn’t enough – comments on Patrick Henningsen’s post on the Occupy Movement

During my research on the internet I often read up on the latest political developments posted by the “Centre for Research on Globalization”. I generally see value in the posted insights, though as I found out today, this depends largely on the author who has contributed to the current edition.

When I read the recent post I realised that critical positioning towards world affairs just is not enough to make valid statements that will help us create a better future for all. The article I am talking about, titled “Here’s the Risk: “Occupy” ends up doing the bidding of the global elite” by Patrick Henningsen, makes this point.

The article starts out with a first promising sentence:  “History shows us it is easy for ‘grassroots’ campaigns to become co-opted by the very interests they are fighting against”. When I started reading here I was quite intrigued in finding out where the author would take this provocative phrase, and saw it as a great opportunity to expose a much overlooked point by those who are fighting on behalf of the Occupy Movement.  However when I read on, I saw that Mr. Henningsen simply gave us an overview of similar occurrences in our political history with a concluding paragraph that reads like this:

“When the dust settles and it’s all said and done, millions of Occupy participants may very well be given a sober lesson under the heading of “controlled opposition”. In the end, the Occupy movement could easily end up doing the bidding of the very elite globalist powers that they were demonstrating against to begin with. To avoid such an outcome, it’s important for a movement to have a good knowledge of history and the levers of power in the 21st century.”

From the first line of this article to this concluding paragraph, the relevance of the issues that are being raised initially is entirely missed from the perspective that I am coming from –  namely, to create a viable future for all humans.  Moreover, the content and choice of words for this opening sentence already implies the issue that would need to be addressed if the author was going to write a bit more than a historical review. Mr. Henningsen’s choice of words then does not justify the concluding paragraph.

The dead give away of where this article should be taken is in the use of the word ‘co-opted’. To co-opt something means that that which is being co-opted is disconnected, in some shape or form, from the lived and shared reality. It means that not all aspects of the idea have been understood, or have been properly evaluated. To ‘co-opt’, in the case of the Occupy Movement, means that those who are part of the movement come to this movement to fulfill a reactionary role, which meets, in logical manner, with more reactionary control by those who are in charge of the money.

It means that Occupy movers have not understood that their reaction towards the global financial and political situation entails a form of aggression similar to the aggression that is being launched in the name of the global money markets. A co-opted act or idea states clearly that somewhere is a flaw where the idea or the act has not been pinned down, where it has been left ‘open’ so that it can be used against those who are acting on the idea. Thus, the outcome is all the same, it has no effect in containing the real issues, or bringing about changes that can be practical and useful for the population.

In the last paragraph, the author sums up the dilemma of the Occupy Movement of being one of lack of knowledge about similar historical situations as well as knowing the “levers of power in the 21st century”. Again, this is a missed opportunity to point out that just ‘knowing’ is not enough as the author himself demonstrates by having written the historical review. What is missing is common sense, or a practical solution that addresses the real underpinned issues of the bigger picture. This bigger picture tells us, first of all, that we are all in the same boat i.e. one planet. This common sense ‘knowledge’ would already take us back down to earth in grasping that any form of aggression will not resolve the situation. It would tell us that the Occupy Movement does nothing more but Occupy our time and common sense and in the end stifle the process of implementing a solution.

A solution that will help us all is based on the recognition, as I said above, that we are all in the same boat, hence all have to take part in this solution to be brought about equally. To scratch the word ‘co-opted’ and maintain an inclusive approach,  without anyone having to subscribe to emotional involvement such as aggression or anger –  it simply means each person has a voice to contribute… and that translates to democratic means: “one man, one vote”.

I am one vote for an Equal Money System!

Get your facts straight and be part of the solution – stop wasting precious time and bring about a peaceful change –

Joins us!

Advertisements

2 Comments

Filed under Equal Money

2 responses to “Critical positioning just isn’t enough – comments on Patrick Henningsen’s post on the Occupy Movement

  1. Cool Manuela – if value is given to apparent insight without practical solution – that clearly demonstrates that ego is valued and not what is best for all and one only want to maintain a position in the system. The only way to crearte a solution that is best for all is if all positions are let go of – and we re-start a new system based on equality.

  2. I just eventually figured that out there how to post! Either way, nice web page and saved as a favorite yah for next day.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s