When your phone or car is broken you go somewhere to have it repaired. You do not tell the mechanic how to repair it. Of course not, you are not an expert. In politics it is different. When something is wrong protesters tell experts how to repair the wrongs. Are protesters experts? Probably not. When experts do it wrong they have to do better. How? That is for them to decide.
When we find that our environment, our freedom and well-being is attacked because too much carbon dioxide is emitted, experts have to come up with better solutions. Activists should not tell experts how energy should be produced. The problem is that energy is produced in the wrong way. We should control if they correct their mistakes, veto if they take wrong decisions and when they do not listen, punish them.
When the wages are going down, the number of poor people are rising and many people become workless because of the financial crisis. We do not have to advance solutions. We may point to the surplus of money that streams to the top because of whitewashing or corruption. When the 1600 billion euro corruption money that each year is stolen by the top is used for all people most financial problems can be solved. The use of too much money by the Happy Few and the support for the growing
money stream by politicians is an important action point. It are people who take
this money and who do nothing against the growing inequality. Those people should become targets, they do it wrong.
I do not see any action against corrupt or condoning leaders while corruption is one of the important money streams to the top besides that hardly taxes are paid, salaries are rising tremendously and the world of the 1% is not at all disturbed by the crisis. The only people who are damaged by these illegal practices are the 99% who see their income go down, their work disappearing and their life restricted.
This is a completely different activist idea. Now activists advance arguments how it should be done and do not pressure leaders. Activists mostly lack knowledge and education but they can judge the effect of decisions on the life of the 99%. Experts should decide and when they don’t do it right we should force them to change decisions.
Action methods must change. We should only control, veto and punish leading persons when they violate the freedom, safety and well-being of the 99%. We should avoid discussions with experts, not become involved in the process of taking decisions. We must not meddle in public or private affairs, govern or administrate. Negotiations lead always to compromises. “Those who are inclined to compromise can never make a revolution” (Ataturk). Autonomous Clubs only make clear that the 99% are not satisfied with what a leader does. They do not tell how it has to be done, they only interfere when leaders take wrong decisions. Leaders govern, we control (veto and punish).
This idea was already advanced by Jean-Paul Marat but never used by leftist nor rightist activists. These political groups want an own power to govern. After each revolution however a new 1% took power and the situation before and after the revolution became comparable. On top a small group of privileged and powerful leaders and at the bottom the powerless 99%.
The 99% should develop an own effective power to control the 1%. Everyone agrees that the top is not doing a great job. They make too many mistakes. Wars continue to take place, millions of children under five continue to die each year, the environment becomes worse and worse, the amount of laws skyrockets, the wealth at the top increases, corruption and crime are feeding the wallets of the 1% etc. The 1% attack our freedom, privacy and safety. Let’s return the gesture and invade their private living sphere, not asking but forcing them to change their attitude and decisions.
We should only control, veto and eventually punish faulty leaders.
Joost van Steenis