Jim wrote: > I guess it's a consumerist model > of politics, with the participants > playing the role of consumers of > a product offered by the entrepreneurial > move-on.org leadership.
Actually, IMO, the consumerist attitude is yours. You imply that it is up to somebody else to offer us, politically agnostic smartasses, *the* adequate political instrument, *the* political instrument that meets our oh-so-lofty standards. But it is not. People who take the political initiative can only create tools that fit their view of the world, tools that one way or another reflect their interest. They don't have to cater to us. That attitude -- passivity, alienation -- is the problem, not the solution. If Jim or anyone of us can create something better than Move On, the SWP, or whathaveyou, what is keeping us from creating it? If we can't, then why is fence sitting and snipping better than using what it's out there? The consumer attitude is, prove to me that your product is good. The producer attitude is, I'll use it if it helps me. And, if it's broken, I'll fix it or create a new one to replace it. We have a choice, we can use the available political instruments as they are, learn from them, try to perfect them as we go along, or -- if we are ready for that -- we can try and create new and better political instruments. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
